Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (by Order)

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Lancaster Aircraft (Special Charter)

Mr. Baker White: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that, on 16th December, 1946, the departure schedule board at the Mauripur airfield at Karachi bore the entry 'Lancaster Plane, Special. Rations for 'V.I.P. Bound for United Kingdom"; whether he will state the names of the 'V.I.Ps.": whether they travelled in this or another aeroplane; and what was the nature of the rations.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): Yes, Sir. The names of the passengers were Sir Leslie Boyce chairman of the Gloster Carriage & Wagon Co.; Mr. Morgan, consulting engineer of Sir William Halcrow & Partners; Mr. Carmichael, director of British Non-Ferrous Metals Federation; Mr. Thornton, secretary, United Textiles Factories Workers' Association; Mr. Haworth of Unilever Ltd.; Mr. Scott, of Dorman, Long & Co. These passengers were all members of a trade mission to China; they travelled on the Lancaster in question, which had been chartered for them by the Board of Trade; they received as rations for their journey between Karachi and

Cairo the normal lunchbox, which contained some sandwiches, an egg, a little fruit, a small piece of chocolate and, to the best of my belief, some chewing gum.

Mr. White: May I ask the Minister if the schedule board also bore these words, relating to a separate plane altogether:


"Flight.
Bound
Carrying


Special V.I.P.
U.K
Lady Cripps daughter and retinue


and that for another plane, a Lancaster, the inscription was:
Special (Rations for V.I.P.)"?
On the schedule board, the trade delegation were not referred to as "V.I.Ps."

Mr. Noel-Baker: In fact it was the plane which carried the trade mission. That is the plane about which the hon. Member has asked. They were a trade mission. They were not technical "V.I.Ps.," according to the verbal usages that are customary, but they had to be given "V.I.P." treatment and a special plane. Otherwise their trade mission to China could not have been carried out.

Mr. White: May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that my Question refers to "V.I.Ps." specifically, and that the schedule board also referred to "V.I.Ps."; and, further, that that is not the plane in which the trade mission travelled?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, it is the plane in which the trade mission travelled. The expression "V.I.P."was used in order to make plain to those who had to provide the rations that the plane was leaving not at the ordinary scheduled time but at a special time and that the rations had to be there.

Mr. William Teeling: Had Lady Cripps and her daughter a special plane, in addition?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is another question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put it down.

Ministry Personnel (Political Invitations)

Mr. Baker White: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that serving members of the R.A.F. employed in his Department have received invitations to join the Fabian Society; that the


invitations were sent to them at their Departmental addresses and that the letters were delivered to them through the official administrative channel; and whether the use of official channels and of the official directory to recruit serving members of the R.A.F. into a political organisation was made with his permission.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir. I understand that serving members of the Royal Air Force employed in the Air Ministry have received through the post invitations to join the Fabian Society. The names are obtainable from published reference books. I cannot think that the hon. Member would welcome any interference with the ordinary procedure for delivering letters, even if I had the power to see their contents, which I have not.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether my former connection with his Ministry is the explanation of my receiving such an invitation?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It certainly is a very distinguished passage in the hon. Gentleman's career. I hope he will accept the invitation.

Bombing Range, Howden

Mr. Glossop: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement with regard to the peacetime use of a bombing range at Howden, East Yorkshire; whether he is aware that the land in question is good agricultural land; and whether he has consulted the Minister of Agriculture on the matter.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The range at Howden was used for practice bombing from 1942 till 1945. Almost all of it has been farmed with little interruption since 1944. I regret that I cannot now say whether this range will be required in future, but I am, of course, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, and with my other right hon Friends who are concerned.

Mr. Glossop: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that before the final decision is made he will have further consultations with his colleagues?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, certainly. Perhaps I might add, to remove misapprehensions in the locality, that were

this to be retained as a range we should only use small smoke puff bombs which would do no damage and would not substantially interfere with farming.

Film Making

Brigadier Mackeson: asked the Secretary of State for Air what aircraft, officers and other ranks of No. 26 Squadron, B.A.F.O., came to England last year and assisted in making a film; how many flying hours were involved in moving the squadron from Germany to England and back to Germany; and how many hours were flown in connection with the making of the film.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Twelve aircraft, nine officers and 60 airmen of No. 26 Squadron flew over to this country from Germany last autumn to take part in an instructional film on Combined Operations. About 90 hours flying were involved in the journeys to and from this country. About 20 hours were flown by the Squadron in the making of the film.

Brigadier Mackeson: Would it not have been possible to convey the parties taking the film to Germany? Would that not have been better?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That would probably have cost more. The hon. and gallant Member must, of course, recognise that the Royal Air Force has to fly for practice anyway.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman do everything he can to encourage the Royal Air Force to make films?

Equal Pay

Mr. Cobb: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider paying the rate for the job in those cases where it is definitely established that W.A.A.F. officers and non-commissioned officers are holding R.A.F. officers' and non-commissioned officers' posts and performing the duties laid down satisfactorily.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: My hon. Friend is, I am sure, aware that His Majesty's Government have recently received the Report of a Royal Commission on the general subject of Equal Pay for Men and Women, and that its recommendations are now under consideration. He will understand that I can make no statement on the principle of equal pay in the Women's Auxiliary Air Force at the present time.

Mr. Cobb: Is it then to be the continued policy of my right hon. Friend to get these jobs, which are admittedly men's jobs, done on the cheap?

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir. My hon. Friend must not assume that. I would refer him in particular to paragraph 60 of the Report of the Royal Commission.

Scrapped Gliders

Flight-Lieutenant Crawley: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many gliders belonging to the R.A.F. have been destroyed since the end of the war.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Since the end of the war, 1,295 gliders belonging to the Royal Air Force have been declared surplus to our needs, and 982 have been scrapped on the authority of the Ministry of Supply.

Flight-Lieutenant Crawley: Is the Minister aware that these gliders are burnt outright in many cases and that they contain a lot of material which would be very useful if it were salvaged?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir; I will certainly look into it. About 300 gliders have been sold mostly for use as gliders. I am told that the great majority of, I believe, the rest are made of very hard laminated plywood which takes a great deal of labour to break down and is almost unsaleable even as firewood.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware whether these gliders which have been destroyed were serviceable gliders, and if so, was the Minister of Civil Aviation consulted before they were destroyed?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I. would not like fully to commit myself, but I feel sure that my noble Friend was consulted. I think that all that were usable for Service purposes or any purposes as gliders have been kept.

Mr. Sidney Shephard: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Air Training Corps had their demands supplied?

Mr. Noel-Baker: To the best of my belief that is so.

Personal Cases

Mr. Wilkes: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is yet in a position to state whether compassionate release or extended leave will be granted to

23356I0 G. D. Largue, A.C.2, whose parents are in hospital, his only relatives at home being a 10 year old brother and an 80 year old grandmother.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: My hon. Friend's letter of 14th January, for which I am grateful to him, was the first information we have received that A.C.2 Largue was in difficulties at home. My hon. Friend has, I hope, now had my letter telling him that Largue has been released.

Mr. Granville Sharp: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has now investigated the allegations, brought to the attention of his Department on 28th December by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, of the improper treatment whilst under arrest, of 1681192 L.A.C. B. Dennis; and what further action he now proposes.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I have called for a full and urgent report on the case of L.A.C. Dennis, and this report is on its way from Singapore. I will write to my hon. Friend when it has arrived and has been considered.

Unemployment, Lasham

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that at the R.A.F. station at Lasham, Hampshire, there is so little for the workshop personnel to do that skilled tradesmen are working on the average only 48 hours in each month and often not more than one hour per day; and whether, in view of the manpower position, he will take steps to remedy this.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I should be grateful for any detailed information about unemployment at Lasham Station which the hon. and gallant Member can let me have. My information is that in November the working hours were approximately 184. in December 150, and in January 200. It is, however, true that, owing to transport difficulties, some men have during the last few weeks, been employed outside their trades.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my information, which was derived from a non-commissioned officer in those workshops, is exactly as I have indicated in the Question? The men have little to do and very often they are employed on work which is practically manufacturing and has nothing to do with their trade.

Mr. Noel-Baker: As I have said, some are working outside their trades. The work in this station is largely repairing crashed aircraft, and in the last few weeks it has not been possible to bring in a good many of the crashes.

Miho, Japan (Camp Conditions)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will make a further statement about the conditions in the R.A.F. camp at Miho, Japan; and whether he has assured himself that similar conditions do not prevail in other Japanese centres.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I have just received a report for which I called in January on conditions in the camp at Miho in Japan. This report confirms my earlier information that the offices, dining and recreation rooms are adequately heated, but that the shortage of labour and materials has prevented the, installation of heating in more than 10 per cent. of the sleeping quarters. At the other R.A.F. centres in Japan heating has been installed in all the offices and in all the communal buildings, including the sleeping quarters.

Surplus Equipment

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Air what efforts are being made to clear goods from redundant ground equipment depots in order to avoid further loss, waste and deterioration.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: There are five ground equipment depots in this country, from which goods and equipment are steadily being cleared. Equipment needed by the Royal Air Force is transferred to seven permanent storage depots. Surplus equipment is declared for disposal to the Ministry of Supply. Goods that might deteriorate are properly stored. The depot staff are constantly reminded that they must avoid all waste or loss, and in general I am satisfied that a difficult task is being handled well.

Mr. Hynd: Is the Minister aware that it is impossible to store these goods without deterioration occurring and that it would be much quicker and more economical to dispose of them by direct sales, to the public?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am afraid we must hand them over to the Department which disposes of them. I do not think we could

set up a sales organisation. We are doing our best to accelerate this disposal but we are hampered by shortage of labour.

Major Bruce: Would my right hon. Friend make sure that there is no generating equipment included in these depots?

W.A.A.F. (Release)

Major Bramall: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will take steps to expedite release from the W.A.A.F. so that women serving in this service are not compelled to serve longer than men in some branches of the R.A.F.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I think my hon. Friend must be under some misapprehension. There is no trade in the Air Force in which the release of women is behind the release of men, and the general level of release for airwomen is three groups ahead of that for men.

Major Bramall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are some trades in which women are being retained longer than men in other trades in the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir. Of course, we do keep a certain equivalent between the men and women of each trade, although the women are ahead. Is my hon. and gallant Friend really suggesting that all the women should be brought out before any men? I am sure the women would repudiate him on that.

Major Bramall: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the women are paid very considerably less than the men doing the same jobs?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Accidents

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he intends to publish reports of air accidents involving British-operated planes; and how soon after any accident such reports may be expected.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if, in view of the recent accidents to civil aircraft, he will ensure a more speedy publication of the causes, compared with the six months' delay


which occurred in publishing the accident report on the B.E.A. Dakota operating the Northolt—Oslo service on 7th August, 1946.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): Unless for security or other reasons publication would be contrary to the public interest, my noble Friend proposes to publish the complete reports. By reason of the nature of the investigations it is impossible to say how soon after any accident the reports may be expected, but it is my noble Friend's intention that publication shall take place as rapidly as possible.
The accident to the British European Airways Dakota at Oslo on 7th August, 1946, was investigated by the Norwegian Authorities under the provisions of the Provisional International Civil Aviation Organisation and was attended by an accredited representative from the United Kingdom. The preparation of the report was a matter for the Norwegian Government.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the Parliamentary Secretary able to assure the House that, save in the circumstances he has mentioned, all these inquiries will be held in public?

Mr. Lindgren: That is the intention of my noble Friend so far as aircraft on the registration of this country are concerned. In the case of aircraft on the registration of other countries, my noble Friend is required to consult with the Government concerned prior to making his decision, and he will do that.

Mr. Cooper: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that on the occasion referred to in Question 18, although the causes of the accident were known within a matter of only three days of the accident occurring, the essential notices to airmen were not published for two and a half months? Will he see that in the case of the present accidents such delay does not occur?

Mr. Lindgren: So far as is humanly possible, yes, Sir.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Can the Parliamentary Secretary assure us also that future British inquiries will be judicial inquiries under legal chairmen with evidence taken on oath?

Mr. Lindgren: I cannot give that assurance.

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. George Ward: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the result of the investigation into the crash of a York aircraft at Bathurst in August last year has not yet been made public and can he say when the result of that investigation is to be made known?

Mr. Lindgren: A report has been made by the inspector to my noble Friend and it is with him now. As soon as possible it will be published.

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how many air crashes have occurred in this country during the past year; how many people have been killed and how many injured; what proportion each represents of the total number carried; and what further steps he proposes to take to prevent further accidents.

Mr. Lindgren: As the reply to the first three parts of the Question contains a number of figures, I will with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
As regards the last part of the Question, my noble Friend has established the Air Safety Board to advise him from the highest technical level on all matters of safety. As I informed the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) on 4th February, the latest safety devices have been or are being adopted as equipment becomes available.

Mr. Freeman: Can my hon. Friend say whether any single factor, either mechanical or technical, operated in more than one case to cause these disasters?

Mr. Lindgren: That is an entirely different question.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Would not these figures, when published, show that British aviation is still far and away the safest in the world?

Mr. Lindgren: I am in entire agreement with that, Sir.

Mr. Rankin: In supplying the information, will my hon. Friend keep before him the fact that the third part of the Question lends itself to two interpretations, and would he say "what propor-


tion each represents of the total number carried" by the planes involved? Will he keep in mind that point?

Mr. John Lewis: In view of the fact that, apart from crashes due to bad visibility, a large number of accidents have occurred in taking off when one engine failed in a two-engined aircraft, will my hon. Friend consult with his noble Friend to ensure that aircraft carrying civilian personnel are so designed that, if one

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS OCCURRING WITHIN THE IN 12 MONTHS ENDING 31ST JANUARY UNITED KINGDOM, 1947.





Number of Accidents.
Passenger Casualties.
Passengers carried (3)
Percentage Deaths.





Notifiable.
Fatal.
Killed.
Injured.


Foreign aircraft
…
…
2
1
11
1
N.A.
N.A.


Corporation aircraft
…
1
1
4
7
N.A.
N.A.


Other United Kingdom aircraft:








On regular services(1)
…
3
2
9
—
260,000
.0035


Other (2)
…
…
11
3
—
3
N.A.
N.A.


Total, United Kingdom aircraft.
15
6
13
10
N.A.
N.A.


N.A. = Not available.

(i) Internal services for which British European Airways Corporation took responsibility on Est February, 1947.

(2) Including Charter, miscellaneous commercial, test and private flying.

(3) Approximately 440,000 passengers were carried on the United Kingdom stage of overseas flights. Separate statistics for Corporation, Charter and foreign aircraft are not available. Of these passengers, one m 29,000 or.0034 per cent. were killed.

Corporations (Staff Matters)

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how many aircrew personnel have left the employment of B.O.A.C., B.E.A. and B.S.A.A., respectively, since 12th September, 1946; and what proportion this represents of the total of such employees.

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how many skilled aircraft maintenance workers have left the employment of B.O.A.C., B.E.A. and B.S.A.A., respectively, since 1st September, 1946: and what proportion this represents of the total of such employees.

Major Peter Roberts: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation to what extent there is unnecessary competition between B.E.A. and

engine cuts out, the other engine is capable of keeping the aircraft airborne?

Mr. Lindgren: The assumption in the latter supplementary question cannot be accepted as the reason. In reply to the previous supplementary, any statistics are likely to be misleading. For instance, had this Question been asked at 31st December, a very different ratio of passengers carried per accident would have been the case.

Following is the reply:

B.O.A.C. for personnel, in that B.E.A. use their public funds to take key personnel of long service from B.O.A.C.; and how many employees of B.O.A.C. have within the last year become employees of B.E.A.

Mr. Lindgren: As I said to the hon. and gallant Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox) on 22nd January last, I regard detailed information about staff matters as falling within the field of management, on which in accordance with the Statute the three airways Corporations are not subject to Ministerial directions. I regret that I do not think it right in these circumstances to invoke Section 22 (6), of the Statute to acquire the information necessary to answer this Question.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: While always anxious to limit the field of Ministerial intervention, could we have an assurance


that the Corporations will be encouraged to publish these figures in their annual reports?

Mr. Lindgren: That will be considered, Sir.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the final responsibility rests on the Minister and his Department, and whatever the figures are, even if they are large, will the Parliamentary Secretary reconsider this matter and inform the House and the public how many are leaving?

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. Whether a man accepts a job, rejects a job or leaves a job depends very largely upon the rate of wage paid, the conditions under which he works, and whether he likes the job or not. The conditions are entirely matters between employer and employee, and there is well established machinery for dealing with those matters.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Does the Minister not consider that if the operations

Employees.
Weekly Wage (inclusive)
Hours of Work (net i.e. excluding mealtimes).
Overtime Rates.
Sunday Time.


Runway Controllers.
100/- by increments of 3/-to 125/-
48
In each 4-weekly period, time and a quarter for hours in excess of 192 up to 208, time and a half for hours in excess of 208.
Plain time (included in) normal time)


Unskilled Labourers
91/-
44
Time and a quarter for first two hours in any one day, time and a half for further hours
Double time.

Routes (Scotland)

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation why, under the air services agreement concluded with Sweden, no power was taken to fly from Scotland to Amsterdam and Hamburg.

Mr. Lindgren: One of the accepted principles of civil aviation agreements is that the routes on which traffic rights are to be accorded should be reasonably direct. The direct route to points in Sweden from points in Scotland does not go by Amsterdam or Hamburg, and services from Scotland to these places could not appropriately be covered in an agreement with Sweden.

of the civil aviation Corporations have been adversely affected, and noticeably so, it is his duty to intervene?

Mr. Lindgren: I think if that were so, one could leave it to the appropriate organisation to call attention to the matter.

Runway Controllers (Pay)

Major Bramall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation the weekly wage, hours of work, overtime rate and Sunday rate of runway controllers at Northolt; and what the comparable figures are for unskilled labourers employed at the same airport.

Mr. Lindgren: As the reply contains detailed figures, I will with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Major Bramall: Would my hon. Friend say whether, for a similar number of hours worked, the unskilled labourers are paid more than those in the runway control?

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir.

Following is the reply:

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Refugees from Poland (Travel Conditions)

Mr. W. Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, if he will make a statement on the trainload of refugees from Western Poland, about which British Military Headquarters at Herford gave some details on Friday 20th December; what steps have been taken to deal with those responsible; and what efforts are being made to prevent a repetition.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): I would refer the hon. Member to the statements I made


in the House on 22nd and 29th January. The movement of these refugees has been suspended.

Mr. Shepherd: Can the Chancellor make any comment on the statement made by the Polish Government that fuel sufficient for the journey accompanied these individuals?

Mr. Hynd: That has been included in the statement have already made.

Mr. Collins: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is aware of the announcement by the Polish Government to the effect that the two trains carrying German repatriates from Poland, in which there were a large number of deaths from exposure, were received without any reservations by British liaison teams and were therefore no longer the responsibility of the Polish authorities, and that the same trains were used for the return of Polish repatriates; and whether he will make a further statement on the action of the Polish Government in this matter, in the light of the requirements of the Potsdam Agreement.

Mr. J. Hynd: A full statement has already been made in the House about the trains which arrived from Polish administered territories and, as will be gathered from that statement, the British liaison team was faced with the dilemma of accepting the trains, or leaving the passengers isolated in an area in which no shelter could be provided. To turn the trains back would have entailed a journey of three days. To send them forward to the British zone would normally have taken only 24 hours, and it was therefore decided, in the interests of the refugees, to adopt the second alternative, while at the same time, making immediate telephonic representations to Berlin to secure the cancellation of any further trains in these conditions. I understand that one of the trains was used for the return of Polish repatriates, although efforts were made to stop it.
Representations and protests to the Polish authorities have been made in the light of an agreement which was signed by British and Polish representatives in February, 1946. This implemented Article XIII of the Potsdam Agreement under which population transfers were to be effected in an orderly and humane manner.

Mr. Collins: Will my right hon. Friend say whether these liaison teams had any responsibility for the timing or conditions of rounding-up of these unfortunate people in Poland?

Mr. Hynd: Certainly not. The British liaison teams were posted on the frontier to check up on the condition in which these people arrived at the frontier, and to decide whether or not they could go forward. On the occasion of the arrival of these two trains, the conditions were particularly severe, and it was felt by our officers that it would be a serious thing to turn these people back.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what effect the protest has had?

Mr. Hynd: Yes, Sir; there have been no further trains received after the one reported on by my officers.

Steel Ingots (Price)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at what price per ton steel ingots made in the British zone of Germany are sold; and how this compares with the corresponding price per ton of steel ingots made in Britain

Mr. J. Hynd: The value of ingots steel in the British zone of Germany is about 86 RMs. a ton, and the corresponding value of British ingots is, I understand, in the region of £10 a ton. In the absence of a recognised rate of exchange no effective comparison can be made between these two values.

Mr. Stokes: As the Secretary of State for War repeatedly tells the House that the official rate is 15RMs to the pound, why is the steel not sold at 150RMs a ton? Surely firms are making unnecessary losses owing to the bogus rate of exchange?

Mr. Hynd: It is true that at the moment the firms are not making a profit on this, but the fact has been repeatedly stated by me in this House that there is no exchange rate for the mark, and it is impossible to compare the mark rates with British pound rates.

Mr. Nigel Birch: Is it not a fact that the Germans are able to sell steel ingots at this price because they get their coal at 15RMs a ton whereas it cost 30RMs to produce?

Mr. Hynd: The price to which I have referred is the price for internal sale in Germany; it is not the export price.

Exports

Mr. Bossom: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the value of the commercial products that are now received here from Germany, which come to counterbalance the British expenses incurred with Germany.

Mr. J. Hynd: Total exports from the British zone of Germany up to 31st January, 1947, were £43,629,200. Of this total, the amount imported into the United Kingdom was £3,011,000. Present imports into the United Kingdom are now at the rate of £450,000 per month

Mr. Bossom: Can the Minister state how touch of this was due to timber for housing.?

Mr. Hynd: The total amount of imports received into the United Kingdom during the three months to 31st January represented £1,264,650. Of that, timber represented £941,200.

Mr. Bossom: Could the Minister say if that timber was satisfactory?

Mr. Hynd: I have not had any suggestion to the contrary.

Mr. Drayson: Can the Minister say how much of that export is attributable to current production, and what amount of it comes from stock?

Mr. Hynd: The main imports into this country consist of timber, with a small amount of, I think, steel scrap of different kinds, but the timber is almost entirely current production.

Requisitioned Premises Hanover

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has considered particulars which have been sent to him concerning the seizure by a British unit of a house in Germany and the removal of personal belongings when the unit moved; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. J. Hynd: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Harrison) and to my hon. and

gallant Friend the Member for Bexley (Major Bramall) on 10th February and 29th January respectively. I will communicate with the hon. Member when my inquiries are completed.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the events described in the Question, and in view of our attempts to de-Nazify Germany, does the Minister not think that occurrences of this kind only tend to make the Germans more Nazi, and that we must try to show them a better way of life?

Mr. Hynd: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman refers to as "occurrences of this kind.' If he refers to requisitioning of property, I am afraid that has been necessary for the accommodation of our people. The actual details of what has transpired in this case are still the subject of inquiry.

Education (Displaced Poles)

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the reason for the termination of Dr. Zimmer's administrative interest in the Haren schools, or any other school within the British zone, and his supersession by a Warsaw Government representative.

Mr. J. Hynd: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) on 5th February. Pending the completion of inquiries, the instruction terminating Dr. Zimmer's administrative interest in these schools has been suspended.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I do not know the answer given on the previous occasion. Was Dr. Zimmer not selected by the teachers, and was that not in accordance with the United Nations' resolution?

Mr. Hynd: the Committee in question is not recognised by the Control Commission. It is quite an unofficial organisation doing a certain amount of good work, and normally its activities are not interfered with. The reasons for Dr. Zimmer s removal are, as stated, certain propaganda activities, and his removal has been suspended pending inquiries.

Refugees

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the resolution of U.N.O. whereby refugees who did not wish to return to their countries would not come under the


control of the representatives of Governments whose authority they challenged, is still being carried out in the British zone of Germany.

Mr. J. Hynd: Yes, Sir.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is the Minister not aware that in February this year the United Nations General Assembly rejected a suggestion that all displaced persons, irrespective of their wishes concerning repatriation, should be controlled by the representatives of the State from which they come?

Mr. Hynd: The fact that the United Nations, or any other body, rejected a proposition, does not mean that they adopted a contrary proposition.

Penicillin Supplies

Mr. Somerville Hastings: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether his attention has been called to the fact that, except for the treatment of venereal disease, no penicillin is available for use in children's hospitals in the British zone of Berlin; and what action he has taken, or proposes to take, in the matter.

Mr. J. Hynd: Since 1st December five mega units of penicillin have been made available each month to the British Sector of Berlin from official sources, for the treatment in hospitals, including children's hospitals, of serious cases of other than venereal disease. In addition 175 mega units have been allocated from very considerable supplies made available for the same purposes by "Save Europe Now", and the British medical profession. The possibility of producing penicillin under licence in Germany is being examined in consultation with the American authorities.

Mr. Hastings: Is my hon. Friend aware that letters have appeared in the Press pointing out how very great the shortage is in our zone of Berlin?

Mr. Hynd: There has, of course, been a very great shortage of penicillin, and it has been difficult for Germany to get into the queue at all. But I can assure my hon. Friend that supplies received since 1st December have met requirements.

Disputes (Settlement)

Mr. Rees-Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is

the constitution of the court which has been set up in the British zone to adjudicate on disputes between members of the Armed Forces, or civilian employees of the Control Commission on the one hand, and members of the German population on the other; what is the jurisdiction of the court; and how does a successful litigant obtain enforcement of its decrees.

Mr. J. Hynd: No such court has been set up.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Is it not time such a court was set up? Will the Minister do so without delay?

Mr. Hynd: I appreciate the point of the question. In fact this question has had my attention for some time and discussions are proceeding with the Control Commission for the setting up of some formal body.

Deaths from Exposure

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many people have died from cold or exposure in the British zone of Germany during the months of December, 1946, and January, 1947; and how many people over the same period have been admitted to hospital suffering from frostbite, or from other maladies to which exposure has been a contributing factor.

Mr.J Hynd: Fifty-three deaths from cold or exposure were reported, and 799 persons were admitted to hospital suffering from frostbite, or from other maladies to which exposure had been a contributing factor. These figures refer to all the British zone, except Schleswig-Holstein, for which figures are not available for either month, and Lower Saxony. for which only the December figures can be given.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: is my right hon. Friend aware that in the light of the human suffering which his answer discloses, our own trials and tribulations are very slight indeed?: 

An Hon. Member: Tell that to your constituents.

Mr. Peter Freeman: Are the conditions any better or worse than in the previous months?

Mr. Hynd: The climatic conditions are obviously very much worse, while other conditions are better, but to strike a balance between the two is difficult.

Internees (Rations)

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why detainees in internment camps in the British zone of Germany, including persons under the automatic arrest category, are receiving rations at a higher scale than the civilian population.

Mr. J. Hynd: Except for hospital cases, internees have a common ration standard; in other words the rations are pooled. Accordingly, no one gets so little as the normal consumer ration and no one gets the full ration to which he would be entitled as a worker.

Mr. Stokes: Does my hon. Friend consider it fair that these rations should have been reduced to the German civilian level? Displaced persons are entitled to a full ration, and not to 1,550 calories, otherwise it is exercising economic pressure on them.

Mr. Hynd: I am afraid my hon. Friend has mistaken the Question and answer.

Mr. Mikardo: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Question refers to Nazi detainees, principally S.S. men, and is supported by evidence from British officers? Will he have a look at that evidence if I supply it to him, from which he. will see that transport was sent long distances to feed these Nazis while the civilian population was starving.

Mr. Hynd: Of course I will look at any evidence my hon. Friend sends, but these rations were decided on the recommendation of nutritional experts.

Dismantling of Factories

Mr. Gammans: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many staff are employed by the Control Commission in Germany on the dismantling of factories, the requisitioning of machinery and similar activities; to what extent the number has been increased during the past six months; and how many factories have been scheduled for dismantling during the past six months in the British zone.

Mr. J. Hynd: On 31st January there were 69 British and 7,669 Germans engaged on this work, compared with 26 British and 4,813 Germans on 31st July, 1946. Seventeen plants have been scheduled for dismantling in the last six months.

Mr. Gammans: Does that answer mean that we are still dismantling plant in Germany, although the right hon. Gentleman said that this had now come to an end?

Mr. Hynd: I have never said this had come to an end. As I stated in the recent Debate, we are proceeding with the dismantling of those factories which have already been scheduled

British and German Women

Mr. Collins: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if his Department will provide facilities so that British women, resident in Germany, can make contacts with German women and children, to assist in welfare and social work on a voluntary basis

Mr. J. Hynd: A beginning has been made with this work, which I hope will increase when physical difficulties, such as the provision of accommodation and heating, have been overcome.

Control Commission (Unpaid Staff)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many persons employed by, or seconded to, the Control Commission in the British zone of Germany are receiving no pay from the Control Commission; and how many are being paid both by the Control Commission, and by private employers

Mr. J. Hynd: There are two officers who at present do not receive official salaries, but draw only the usual allowances for service in Germany There are, I understand, a number of cases in which Control Office salaries and allowances are supplemented by firms who have lent particular officers to the Commission. These are, however, private arrangements between the firms and individuals concerned, and I have no particulars of them.

Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great concern this is causing among members of the Control Commission? Is it-not desirable that everyone should be paid by the Control Commission, and that no one should be paid by anyone else?

Mr. Hynd: We are not in a position to force the acceptance of salaries on any individuals who wish to give services free.

Education Adviser

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is now in a position to announce the name and the functions of the education officer to be appointed to the Commander-in-Chief of the British zone in Germany.

Mr. Peart: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is yet in a position to announce the appointment of an adviser on education in the British zone of Germany.

Mr. J. Hynd: This appointment has been offered to Mr. Robert Birley, at present headmaster of Charterhouse School and a well known authority on educational matters, and I am very happy to be able to announce that he has accepted it. Mr. Birley will be Adviser on Education to the Deputy Military Governor and will co-ordinate, supervise and inspire all re-educational work in the British zone of Germany, whether it is carried out by the Education Branch or by other branches of the Control Commission. Mr. A. E. Riddy, the present head of Education Branch, whose admirable work is known to many Members of the House, is remaining to assist Mr. Birley I am most grateful to the Governors of Charterhouse School for making it possible for Mr. Birley to take up his appointment soon after the end of the present school term.

Sir W. Smithers: Does that mean that Mr. Birley will leave Charterhouse as headmaster altogether?

Mr. Hynd: Yes, Sir.

Sir W. Smithers: Thank heavens

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPANESE REPARATIONS (CONFERENCE)

Mr. John Paton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if His Majesty's Government has been consulted by the U.S. Government on the desirability of an early inter-Allied Japanese reparations conference on the basis of the recommendations made by Ambassador Pauley.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): The United States Government have invited all Gov-

ernments represented on the Far Eastern Commission to take part in early consultations on Japanese reparations. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have accepted this invitation, but it is not yet known when the discussions will begin or what form they will take. Mr. Edwin Pauley's recommendations to President Truman on Japanese reparations have not been specifically put forward as the basis for these discussions.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that very large quantities of commodities and goods, removed from Malaya and Hong Kong, the subject of claims by British firms and individuals, were found in Japan after its capture and should be taken into consideration in this matter, as the claimants have received no indication that they are to have any reparations for these goods, some of which were removed from Japan to America?

Mr. Bevin: I will bear that in mind

Mr. Paton: In view of the importance of the discussions that will shortly be taking place, will my right hon. Friend make arrangements to see that effective reports are placed in the Library of this House, so that Members may keep themselves informed?

Mr. Bevin: I will give consideration to that.

Mr. Eden: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he knows yet where these discussions will take place, and who will represent us at them?

Mr. Bevin: It has not been decided whether it will be in Washington or in Tokyo.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS (PERSONAL CASE)

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why His Majesty's Consul-General at Milan has not yet issued a British passport to Mrs. Carla Freeman, whose present address is Famiglia Martini, via Corti 31, Sta Maria di Rovere, Treviso, who married a British Serviceman last autumn and whose application was sent to the Consulate-General last October; and whether, in view of the delay thus caused to this young lady's


journey to London, he will instruct the Consulate-General to issue the passport forthwith.

Mr. Bevin: I have no information concerning Mrs. Carla Freeman, but I have asked His Majesty's Consul-General at Milan for a report.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since I put down this Question I have had further information, and could he, if I give him the name of the military unit of the husband, ask the Consul-General to act quickly, and get the necessary documents?

Mr. Bevin: Certainly, Sir.

Captain Crookshank: Is not the hon. Member the last person to be so interested in British passports?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDO-CHINA

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ascertain the intentions of the French Government in regard to Indo-China before proceeding with negotiations for an Anglo-French treaty.

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. As the Prime Minister made it clear in his statement in the House on 23rd January the object of the proposed treaty is to prevent any further aggression by Germany. It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to conclude the negotiations as soon as possible.

Mr. Chamberlain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the statement issued at the end of M. Blum's visit did make a wider reference to the need for the preservation of peace and security in the general sense, and is he aware that many of us are extremely concerned at this recrudescence of Imperialism on the part of France? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Will he bear in mind that we are not only a Socialist Party, but an international Socialist Party?

Mr. Bevin: I have all these things in mind, but I think I must leave this particular dispute to France.

Mr. Chamberlain: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter as soon as possible on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Politica1 Lectures

Brigadier Low: asked the Minister of Defence how many lectures Professor Laski has given to Service audiences in the last six months; and upon what system lecturers are invited to ensure that all political points of view are equally placed before member of the Forces.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V Alexander): So far as I am aware, Professor Laski has given only one lecture to a Service audience in the last six months. Political lectures as such are not arranged for Service audiences and should a lecturer have to touch on any political subject or current national issue he is asked to avoid political bias and deal with the point in as detached and objective a manner as possible. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that I and my colleague are at his service any time for giving lectures?

Mr. Alexander: I hope that the hon. Member will sometimes go to these lectures to receive education.

Mr. Nally: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an essential part of political education is the ability to detect fraudulent journalism, and will he make arrangements to provide adequate facilities for that acknowledged master of journalism, Mr. Wentworth Day, to lecture to Service audiences?

War Gratuities (Next of Kin)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will consider the payment of war gratuities to next of kin of those killed on active service. to date from the day of enlistment until the end of hostilities, irrespective of the date of death

Mr. Alexander: The war gratuity is essentially a personal award in respect of length of war service. It would be contrary to the principles on which it is based to add extra service in particular cases for the purpose of calculating the gratuity payable to next of kin

Retired Pay

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Minister of Defence the total annual sum required in order to restore to all ex-officers of the Forces, whose retired pay was stabilized


in 1935 at 9½ per cent. below the basic rates of 1919, the amounts by which their retired pay, after the coming into force of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, and of the Pensions (Increase) Bill now before Parliament, will still fall short of the basic rates of 1919.

Mr. Alexander: At a rough estimate, between £180,000 and £200,000 a year.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is that not a very small proportion of our enormous expenditure in these days? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the retired pay of these officers was reduced originally, the Royal Warrant laid down that it should be raised in the event of a rise in the cost of living? Will he not consider, at a very early date, making the restoration?

Mr. Alexander: I am aware that a sum of £200,000 does not in itself appear to be much, but if it were conceded in this case, it might have to be conceded in numerous other cases, and the cost would be much greater.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Are there any other cases in which a promise has been made by the Government by Royal Warrant that restoration would be made?

Mr. Alexander: I think the matter cannot be dealt with entirely on that basis. It must be dealt with on the basis of claims made on the Treasury and upon common principles.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: If the T.U.C. were asking for it the right hon. Gentleman would give it to them.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

"Rodent Mail"

Mr. John Morrison: asked the Minis-of Food the annual cost of "Rodent Mail," issued by the infestation division of his Department; how many are employed in its production; how many copies are circulated; and what purpose does the publication achieve.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): The estimated annual cost of "Rodent Mail" is £480. Four thousand seven hundred and fifty copies are printed monthly by H.M. Stationery Office and

circulated to local authorities No special staff is required. The purpose of the publication is to stimulate effort on sound up-to-date lines.

Mr. Morrison: On what basis are claims made for rats actually destroyed?

Dr. Summerskill: A survey is frequently made by our investigation officer.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Could I ask the hon. Lady whether the issue of "Rodent Mail" is considered as an essential service, and will be continued during the crisis?

Dr. Summerskill: It provides an effective antidote to the discouragement which questions like this produce upon excellent officials.

Mr. Hogg: Should it not be called the "Rodent Herald"?

Canned Milk and Bacon

Mr. J. Morrison: asked the Minister of Food how much home-produced tinned milk and home-produced tinned bacon is being made available in exchange for points; and why the milk is not available as fresh milk in the ordinary way and the bacon as part of the ration supply.

Dr. Sutnmerskill: About 5,600 tons of home-produced canned milk in the last "points" period, or 30 per cent. of releases, and 2,800 tons of canned bacon, or about 60 per cent, of the total releases were home-produced. The milk was canned during the period of the summer "flush" so as to be available for consumption in the winter when liquid milk supplies are short. The bacon was canned for the Services some time ago, and is not suitable for sale as part of the bacon ration.

Norwegian Herrings

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Food if he has contracted with the Norwegian Government for the importation of Norwegian herring to be kippered in Scotland; what are the terms of the contract; where are the herring to be landed; in what quantities, and where are they to be kippered; and what will be the effect on the price and supply of kippered herring for food in Great Britain.

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. The contract with the Norwegian authorities, pro-


vides for the sale beween 1st January and 30th April of up to 30,000 tons of herrings. The quantity imported will depend upon the fishing and the demand. The herrings will be landed at Aberdeen, North Shields and Hull. About two-thirds will be offered to kipperers in or near these ports. Kippers produced from Norwegian herrings will be subject to the same maximum prices as kippers produced from British herrings and will be a useful addition to food supplies.

Tea Rationing

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the large stocks of tea in this country and the fact that many people are not drawing their full allowance, he will discontinue the rationing of tea in the near future.

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Minister of Food if he can hold out hope of an early cessation of tea rationing.

Dr. Summerskill: I cannot hold out any hope of an early cessation of tea rationing. As the estimated world production of tea for 1947 falls considerably below world demand, there is likely to be increasing competition for these short supplies.

Mr. Freeman: Can my hon. Friend give any indication whether more or less tea would he consumed if rationing ceased?

Dr. Summerskill: If rationing ceased, only those who could pay the higher price would get tea.

Major Guy Lloyd: Can the hon. Lady tell the House how many officials are employed in the rationing of tea?

Dr. Summerskill: That is another question.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the hon. Lady aware that the shortage of tea—to the extent that there is a shortage—is due to the closing of the tea auctions in Mincing Lane?

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir.

Soya Beans

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Food whether he has now been able to obtain larger supplies of soya beans and flour in view of its great dietetic value and increasing demand.

Dr. Summerskill: Soya beans are now being bought in the Far East, and I hope

that more regular supplies for the manufacture of soya flour will be available in the future.

Slaughterhouses

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to get premises, not in use at the present time, which could be readily converted into suitable slaughterhouses.

Dr. Summerskill: The slaughterhouses now in use are adequate for the greater part of the year. Some congestion occurs during two or three months in the autumn when the number of stock sold by farmers for slaughter is at its peak, and we shall be prepared to open additional slaughterhouses at the peak period provided that slaughtermen are available.

Mr. Bossom: Is the Minister satisfied that there is no cruelty in these slaughterhouses?

Dr. Summerskill: We are using all those that we think suitable. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that this is not the time to launch a building campaign for slaughterhouses.

Mr. Bossom: That was not my question. My question was: Is the Minister satisfied that there is no cruelty in these slaughterhouses?

Dr. Summerskill: We have a slaughterhouse manager in each slaughterhouse. I am assured that these men are very carefully chosen and they do their very best to ensure that the provisions made for protecting animals are observed.

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Food what inspection has been made recently of slaughtering arrangements at Southampton; and to what extent they were found unsatisfactory.

Dr. Summerskill: The slaughterhouses at Southampton were last visited by the acting area slaughterhouse agent on the 4th February, 1947. At premises situated in Spa Road, Southampton, a winch was found to be unserviceable and to require overhaul. The premises in Chantry Road are situated in a built up area and are overlooked from neighbouring dwelling houses. These premises are very confined, and the Medical Officer of Health has complained that at times when the river is high, refuse from the sewers is forced back into some of the low-lying


property in the town. In reply to representations from the local authority we have indicated our willingness to close the Chantry Road premises.

Mr. Bossom: Should not the Minister declare her anxiety to stop this, and not only her willingness?

Mr. Speaker: Sir Waldron Smithers.

Sir W. Smithers: Should not the hon. Lady employ the managers to whom she has referred—

Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Member to ask the next Question.

Village Shops (Reserves)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food whether in view of the severe wintry weather, he will instruct proprietors of village shops to carry a suitable reserve of food and give them the necessary facilities to enable them to do so.

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. Village shop keepers can maintain only such stocks as their facilities permit. Where a crisis arises, the Ministry co-operates with local authorities to get emergency supplies into stranded areas.

Sir W. Smithers: What happens when the roads are impassable, as they are in Knockholt, the place in which I live? Would the hon. Lady make arrangements for shopkeepers in small villages to have sufficient supplies for, say, two or three weeks, to enable them to overcome the wintry weather such as that which we are experiencing at present all over the country?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman must remember that all these shopkeepers are not wealthy men and they are unable to buy big supplies. During the present crisis, in the event of a village being cut off we have invited the R.A.F. to help us to send supplies.

Mr. Osborne: Is the hon. Lady aware that, in Lincolnshire, villages have been cut off for a fortnight, and that at Binbrook the R.A.F. were allowed to drop supplies to the R.A.F. station but not to the people of the village? Cannot supplies be put into these isolated villages?

Dr. Summerskill: I think the hon. Gentleman is anticipating a Question

which he has on the Paper. If he will exercise a little patience, I think he will get a satisfactory answer.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Is the hon. Lady aware that this is the first admission that has come from the Conservative Benches that this is a severe winter?

Meat (Lower Grades)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Food what are the lower grades of meat, till now used only for manufacturing, which butchers have been instructed to sell as part of the meat ration; where this kind of meat originates; and whether it is inspected before distribution to butchers.

Dr. Summerskill: Certain grades of beef, which were regularly issued as part of the ration until we became short of manufacturing meat early in 1946, are now being included in the ration again. They are second quality bullock and heifer beef, and the better qualities of cow beef, and come from the Southern Dominions, Canada, Rhodesia, and the United States. All this meat is inspected before distribution.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the hon. Lady say why the reasons for which this meat had to be put into circulation for human consumption, were marked, "Not for publication", when issued to the butchers; and will she say why the general public should not be allowed to know the reasons for this action?

Dr. Summerskill: I think it is quite clear that the general public knew, otherwise the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not have put this Question down.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the hon. Lady confirm or deny that instructions were given to butchers that this was to be kept secret?

Dr. Summerskill: I can do neither, unless another Question is put down.

Mr. Walkden: Are the contents of sausages kept secret, too?

Australian Canned Meat

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Food why less tinned meat is to be obtained from Australia this year as compared with last year.

Dr. Summerskill: Our need for frozen meat is more pressing than our need for


canned meats. We have asked Australia for less canned meat so that we can have more in frozen form.

Oils and Fats

Colonel Wheatley: asked the Minister of Food what is his justification for putting the burden of the December increase of 28s. per cwt. on dripping, compounds and edible oils entirely on the shoulders of the retailer.

Dr. Summerskill: The traders to whom prices have been increased use oils and fats mainly for food manufacture, so that most of the extra cost will probably be borne by the ultimate consumer.

Colonel Wheatley: asked the Minister of Food what quantity of edible oils and fats, including dripping, were imported from South America during 1946.

Dr. Summerskill: Our imports of edible oils and fats from South America in the calendar year 1946, amounted to 39,067 tons.

N.A.A.F.I. Issues

Colonel Wheatley: asked the Minister of Food if there is a comparable reduction in the quantity of bacon issued to N.A.A.F.I. when the ration of the civil population is reduced.

Dr. Summerskill: Reductions in Services' rations are not made automatically when civilian rations are reduced, although they are reviewed from time to time in consultation with the Services Departments. Issues to N.A.A.F.I. for canteens and catering and for sale to registered customers at N.A.A.F.I. shops have been reduced in proportion to the reduction in civilian rations.

Points Values

Mr. David Renton: asked the Minister of Food whether he will give an undertaking that there will be no increase in the number of points required for the exchange of any item of food which is at present on points.

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. Correct points values are essential to the proper operation of the points rationing scheme. They must be adjusted so that supplies are fairly distributed to consumers.

Mr. Renton: Is the hon. Lady aware that this continuous debasement of points

values for goods, has lead in fact to a reduction of the total amount of food available for the consumer; and will she give an assurance that this process will be arrested?

Dr. Summerskill: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands our points banking scheme. If there is a run on a certain food we must increase the points value. If food remains on the grocers' shelves, of course we shall reduce the points value. That seems to me to be simple arithmetic.

Rations (Calorie Value)

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: asked the Minister of Food whether the intake of rationed food of the average British rationed person is at present of the order of 1,400 calories per day; and what respective supplement in calories the average person in a household and the single person living alone is reckoned by him to obtain from a normal expenditure of points.

Dr. Summerskill: The calorie value of the domestic rations, including liquid milk and shell eggs, for the non-priority consumer is at the present time just under 1,400 calories per day. The average calorie equivalent of the domestic entitlement of 8 points per week is estimated to be just over 200 calories per day. It would not be possible to say, without much research, how the single person spends his points, as compared with a family.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Does the hon. Lady think, then, that, in any calculation of calories, the unrationed goods are sufficient to make up a total calorie intake of 2,800, which I think is the calorie figure which has been so recently quoted?

Dr. Summerskill: Certainly, Sir. The calorie intake has been as high as 2,900. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must remember that the figures I have given cover only rationed and pointed goods. There is a wide field of non-rationed goods, such as fish, potatoes, vegetables manufactured meat and restaurant meals.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Lady has no need to lecture me or any other hon. Member on this point. I asked her whether she realised that that figure of the calorie intake is double that of the normal ration?

Dr. Summerskill: I had no intention of lecturing my right hon. and gallant colleague, but I can assure him that I have given my personal attention to this matter and that I am perfectly satisfied that, with unrationed food, it is quite possible for everybody to enjoy a calorie intake of 2,900.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Can the hon. Lady give some figures bringing out that calculation? Is she aware that I have been unable to work it out?

Dr. Summerskill: I think this is important, and so I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the House will forgive me if I answer the right hon. and gallant Gentleman again. We have, every month or so, a food survey, because we are anxious to discover how each social unit, let us say, of the community is faring—[Laughter.] Well, hon. Members often object when we talk about the working class and the upper class, and I therefore use that euphemism. We take this picture of a cross-section of the people of the country, and, as a result, we have been satisfied that the calorie intake can reach that level.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Will the hon. Lady let me have the figures?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the figures be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Dr. Summerskill: I will consider that.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Can the hon. Lady say whether the calorific value of fish, which is available on most days of the week and is not on the ration, or green vegetables and a tremendous variety of fruit, are not equivalent, at least, to the calorie figure referred to?

Dr. Summerskill: That is the argument I have advanced.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the hon. Lady see that, when she communicates these figures to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, they shall be made available to the rest of the House?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, if the hon. Gentleman insists.

Mr. De la Bère: On a point of Order. May we stop this practice of these billets-doux and have these figures properly circulated?

Oral Answers to Questions — BEER PRODUCTION

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement on the shortage of beer; state the reasons for it; and give an estimate of how long it is likely to continue.

Dr. Summerskill: Any shortage of beer in recent years has been due to increased demand, because although standard barrelage has been cut to save grain, the reduction in the average strength of beer has more than offset it and resulted in a total increase in quantity. Down to the present fuel emergency, bulk production was nearly 20 per cent. above prewar. Production is bound to decline during the current fuel shortage, but I hope it will soon be restored.

Mr. Gammans: Is the hon. Lady suggesting that there has been no reduction in the production of beer during the last few months?

Dr. Summerskill: What I am saying is that the production has increased by 20 per cent. over the prewar figure.

Mr. James Hudson: In view of the enormous expenditure on beer, is there not.a case for a reduction—a very good case?

Sir T. Moore: Is not water more important than barley in the present production of beer?

Orders of the Day — POLISH RESETTLEMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.33 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: On a point of Order. I wish, if I may, to ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. There was a very important statement made last night, after HANSARD had gone to bed, very much affecting the subject of this Bill. I would ask you whether it is really convenient, or even tolerable, that we should discuss the Second Reading of this Bill without having before us the statement made last night by the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Speaker: Of course, I think the Debate last night was on a different issue, or one aspect only of the Polish question. This Bill covers many other aspects, and I have no doubt that the statement made by the Minister would be seen in the Press this morning. I realise that there is a difficulty with HANSARD appearing rather late, and I would suggest that the Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports be asked to look into this matter, to see if HANSARD could not include these Debates so that they could he published a little earlier.

Mr. Pickthorn: Thank you very much, Sir.

3.35 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is necessitated by the various phases through which our relations with successive Polish Governments have passed during the last seven years or so. Its primary purpose is to enable Departments to take over the functions which have been performed by the Interim Treasury Committee for Polish Questions, which was set up in the lifetime of the "Caretaker" Government when that Government withdrew its recognition of the London Polish Government on 5th July, 1945. It enables us to deal with that very large number of Polish citizens who served this country and the Allied cause in the field, including that very

gallant number of Poles who played so conspicuous a part in the winning of the Battle of Britain. The proportion of enemy planes brought down by the Polish squadrons in that battle is an eloquent and convincing testimony to the value of the work done by these men.
I think the House would probably like to know the extent of the problem with which we have to deal in this matter. I am bound to say that the figures I give, must be taken as approximate, because, as we come in touch with Polish nationals overseas, the number fluctuates from time to time. I would not like to say that the figures I give today are of necessity final, but I hope they are approximately final. We have knowledge that some—

Mr. Pickthorn: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I think he said "final" when I rather gathered he meant not final.

Mr. Ede: If I did leave out a negative, it was a slip, and I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to put it right. I think the figures are reasonably approximate, but I am sure that hon. Members will realise that there is great difficulty in saying that one has brought in every Polish national who may ask to be included. We have knowledge of some 213,000 Polish nationals. Of these, 127,000 are at the present moment in the United Kingdom; 25,000 are in oversea theatres, and 61,000 have been repatriated to Poland, or have emigrated to countries other than Poland and appear to have established roots elsewhere, which will relieve us of any further responsibility for them. Of the 116,000 in the United Kingdom—

Mr. Michael Astor: If I may correct the right hon. Gentleman, should not the figure be 127,000?

Mr. Ede: I am sorry; I am obliged to the hon. Member for pointing out the mistake. Of the 127,000 in the United Kingdom, 65,400 have opted for the Polish Resettlement Corps; 19,600 have opted for repatriation or emigration; 15,400 have not given a decision, but have had the various alternatives posed to them, and 26,600 have not yet been approached. Those who had the opportunity of hearing my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour last night will know that he described


something of this process, and that we have not yet been able to approach all these people. But, judging by our experience, I do not think that the proportions between the three groups mentioned are likely to vary much when we come to this final 26,600, except that I think it probable that the number at present undecided, will tend to drop. A curious thing is that recent changes in the British weather appear to have persuaded some Poles that the Polish climate is preferable to the British.

Major Guy Lloyd: Not only the weather, but the Government.

Mr. Ede: Quite frankly, I do not think it is the Government of this country to which they object; we have found that the main difficulty in persuading some of the Poles to go back to Poland, is due to the fact that a number of them prefer the British Government to the present Polish Government.

Mr. Astor: The right hon. Gentleman referred to 230,000 Polish nationals. May I ask whether he is taking into account those Poles in the British zone of Germany whom I would call "displaced persons"?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. These are the 213,000 with whom we have been in touch by means of the Armed Forces, and include people who have come to this country as refugees. The figure is not 230,000; it is 213,000.

Mr. Warbey: Do those figures include wives, dependants and followers?

Mr. Ede: Yes, they include all the people who have been brought to this country, or who are in a position abroad which entitles them to be regarded as dependants or followers of the Polish Forces associated with us in the war.

Mrs. Leah Manning: What are "followers"?

Mr. Ede: I am quite sure that all my hon. and right hon. Friends who have ever served in the Armed Forces have a pretty good idea of the heterogeneous mass of people who can be described as "camp followers."

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Do these people include members of the civil administrative staff in this country?

Mr. Ede: They include all civil administrative staff in this country; all the people who were connected with the London Polish Government.

Mrs. Manning: Before my right hon. Friend proceeds, may I ask him a question about camp followers? Is it quite right to describe some of those women, who may be English women, and who do not really know whether they are married to these Poles or not, as camp followers? Many Poles do not know where their own wives are, or even whether they are dead or alive. I think "camp followers" is the wrong term to use.

Mr. Ede: I did not introduce the word "followers" into this discussion. There is a number of people of both sexes who were so closely associated with the Polish Army that it was quite obvious that, in clearing up the problem, they would have to be brought into account. I have cast no aspersions on anybody. With regard to some of these people, I know the very great difficulty of ascertaining exactly what their position is, but I have tried, at this stage, to include as many people as possible. I am particularly anxious not to use any term that may be regarded as offensive in connection with any one of them.
I would ask my hon. Friends to allow me to make my speech in what, I hope, will be a reasonably short space of time. I think I ought to explain that no Clause of this Bill actually relates to my Department. Each Clause deals with a separate Government Department. I am, of course, generally responsible for the admission of aliens into this country, for their oversight when they are in this country, and for seeing that, as far as possible, when in this country, they accommodate themselves to the British way of life. When the Bill is in Committee, each Clause will, of course, be defended, where necessary, by the Minister of the particular Government Department responsible for the service with which the Clause deals. As far as Polish nationals are concerned, I hope that the Bill is as all-embracing as possible, and that it will enable us' to arrange for the orderly and appropriate demobilisation of this Polish Army.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) repeated in this House on Monday night


a statement of his own policy, which he had previously made at Question time. On Monday night, he said:
I have no hesitation in saying to the House that, personally, had I been responsible, I had always intended that the 180,000 Poles and their dependants should go to Germany as part of the Army of Occupation, far from the Russian or Polish frontiers…" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, l0th February, 1946; Vol. 433, c. 115.]
His Majesty's Government have not been able, at any stage, to accept that suggestion. I am quite sure that, difficult as the situation in Europe has been, and awkward as some of the questions with which we have had to deal with our Eastern Allies have been, they would have been infinitely more complicated and more difficult to handle, had that suggestion been carried out. We have to face the fact that the majority of these 213,000 people do not view with favour or trustfulness, the present Government of Poland, and their presence as an armed force any nearer to Poland than they are at present would, in fact, have complicated matters on the Continent. In establishing the Polish Resettlement Corps, we have, for convenience, brought them into a unit of the British Army for disciplinary purposes. They are unarmed, and are being steadily prepared for absorption into civilian life. I hope that the measures proposed in this Bill will enable that absorption to take place rather more rapidly than has been the case in the past.
The Interim Treasury Committee, consisting of civil servants responsible to the Government and to this House, has under it a body of Poles who have been working in this matter, and it started with as many as 1,500. The chief Polish representative is Count Raczynski, who was the Polish Ambassador in London at the time when the London Government ceased to receive recognition. We promptly reduced that number to about 600, and at present the number of staff employed is about 400. The Interim Treasury Committee will have incurred expenditure of about £10,750,000 and, in addition, there has been an expenditure on behalf of Polish refugees of somewhere over £3 million. Since August of last year, the financial responsibility for nearly 30,000 refugees in the Middle East, Africa and India has been assumed by U.N.R.R.A. We have given the pledge that he will not force any Pole to return to Poland against

his will. I have even had on occasion—I will admit sometimes with reluctance, with regard not merely to Poles but other foreign nationals—to say that I would not even deport them when they have been guilty of quite considerable breaches of the laws of this country, if the effect of deportation would be to send them to a country where they might incur either religious or political persecution. By that policy we still stand.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Would the right hon. Gentleman also give an assurance that no Polish national will be retained in this country against his will? That is equally important.

Mr. Ede: Certainly. One of the objects of this Bill is to assist the process by which we can give a categorical assurance on that subject, and have the power of enforcing it in our own hands. I do not think I need elaborate the point that I have just made. I am quite sure that no one in this House would desire that anyone should be driven out of this country, or have to face political or religious persecution at all. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary from time to time in this House has given his assurances to that effect. At the same time, we desire that as many as possible of these people who feel that they can return with safety to Poland, should do so at the earliest possible moment. We regard as the first choice that should be made by a Pole, the choice of going back to Poland to carry on there, if possible, the democratic way of life which he has observed and practised in this country. The last thing I would like to say would be any word that indicated that that is not the first duty of a patriotic Pole.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that it is now possible to go back to Poland and carry on a democratic way of life there? [Hon. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am putting it to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Ede: Well, of course, I have not been to Poland, as some of my hon. Friends have. What I desire to see is that all the democratic influences that can be brought to bear anywhere in Europe in the re-establishment of governments shall be brought to bear, and I am not going to enter into a controversy with the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English


Universities (Mr. Henry Strauss) as to the extent to which that may be possible in any country. Sometimes, when I read the Tory Press in this country, I gather it is not possible to do it here.

Mr. H. Strauss: I was not raising any question of controversy. I merely wished to know whether the Home Secretary was giving a different version of the position in Poland from that given on behalf of the Foreign Office about a week ago.

Mr. Ede: I do not think anything I have said, either before the hon. and learned Member spoke or since, gives that indication.

Mr. Lipson: Is not the question raised by the hon. and learned Member one for each individual Pole to decide for himself?

Mr. Ede: That is what I hoped I had said, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) for saying it so much more shortly. After these preliminaries, perhaps I may turn to the exact powers that we take in the Bill. Clause 1 brings within the scope of the Ministry of Pensions all those Poles who have served in the Forces, and brings them into the pensions scheme on the same terms as Britons who similarly, unfortunately, have to come within the purview of the Ministry of Pensions. For some time this has been the case, and a protocol which was signed in 1943 ensured to the Polish troops that they should have this right. We pay these pensions to the Poles while they are in this country, but these pensions are not paid to Poles who return to Poland. If they return to Poland, quite clearly they then become the responsibility of the Polish Government.

Mr. H. Hynd: What is the position if they go to some other country?

Mr. Ede: I do not think we are then called upon to continue to pay the pensions. One would have all the difficulty of ascertaining that they were really getting the same pension if they went to a country where the rate of exchange may be very much against them. The present number of Poles receiving pensions in this country is 1,022 and the annual cost is 84,000. There are many invalids and disabled men in the Polish Armed Forces

who, upon discharge, will be eligible for pensions. Members of the Polish Resettlement Corps will be within the terms of this Measure, and will benefit on discharge in the way that I have just indicated.
Clauses 2 and 3 deal with allowances from the assistance board. The Interim Treasury Committee is at the moment providing assistance in the case of unemployed Poles. Where a Pole was resident in this country before the war, his relief does not come from that source. The scale of relief provided by the Interim Treasury Committee has, up to the present, been rather higher than that which would be supplied by the assistance board to a British subject. The reason for that is that the majority of the people who have benefited from the Interim Treasury Committee's activities are people who came to this country as refugees with very little more than they stood up in, and, in consequence, it would not have been possible for them to maintain themselves and carry on an existence on the allowance received by a person who has, at any rate, some furniture and some household goods in this country. The number of persons receiving full or supplementary relief from the Interim Treasury Committee is about 2,500, and the monthly cost is round about £30,000.
When it was decided to bring the Second Corps from Italy to this country the question at once arose what was to be done with regard to the people who come within the category—and I hope this time I shall use a word that will give nobody any offence—that can be regarded as dependants. Clearly we could not leave them behind in Italy. I think we should have had a great difficulty in persuading a number of men to come, or at any rate to agree to any form of arrangement that appeared to cut them off permanently from wives and children and other people with whom they had been associated. At the moment most of these dependants—nearly all the wives and children—are in the Service camps along with their men-folk, and the other dependants are housed in a dozen or so camps specifically provided for dependants. All these people will, when they pass out into civilian life, become eligible for assistance if they require it. But it has been decided that while they are in the camps, they shall contribute out of their wages towards their keep, and arrangements have been made


for the collection of contributions in accordance with an appropriate sliding scale. There is no sanction at present against those who refuse to pay, because it would not be quite possible to throw them out of the camps. But with the passage of this Bill the Assistance Board will have the power to recover in a civil court.
Clause 4 deals with the question of health services. The London Polish Government had made fairly elaborate arangements for dealing with their nationals in this country. They had provided convalescent homes for Servicemen injured in the fighting, neuro-psychiatric homes and training centres for the disabled; and in addition there were medical dispensaries in London, Liverpool and Glasgow. In view of the heavy pressure on the British medical services, the Interim Treasury Committee took over these institutions and continued to administer them at an average annual cost of £223,000. With the exception of the training centres these services will now, broadly speaking, be the responsibility of the Ministry of Health; and in view of the increased number of Polish civilians in the country they may have to be extended. The question of the establishment of one or more general hospitals is now under consideration, together with that of a post-graduate medical school where doctors could receive short refresher courses, and might obtain their degrees. I hope it will be possible to carry on for the Poles these very excellent arrangements which had originally been made by the London Polish Government, but were taken over the Interim Treasury Committee, as long as sufficient groups of them remain in large enough numbers to justify the continuation of the services.
Clause 5 carries on the temporary recognition of doctors and pharmacists. The Defence Regulation dealing with this matter expires next December, and that is why this Clause also will expire next December Therefore, any provision it is necessary to make in this matter after December will be part of the general arrangements that will have to be considered when the expiry of the Defence Regulation comes up. I may say there is, apparently, no difficulty with regard to dentists, because the problems which have been presented to the country generally with regard to alien doctors have not arisen with regard to dentists.
Clause 6 deals with the education services. The Polish Forces in this country under the London Polish Government gave a very great amount of attention to the education of the men for whom they were responsible. They built up a very substantial education service in co-operation with many of the universities of this country. They also acquired a very substantial library, mainly by contributions of the men in the Forces. In fact, there were as many as 60,000 volumes in the Polish libraries just before the London Polish Government were deprived of recognition. Those libraries were, in fact, handed over to certain Polish organisations just before recognition was withdrawn. There were five faculties in Great Britain: medicine at Edinburgh; veterinary studies at Edinburgh; law at Oxford; architecture at Liverpool; and the Board of Technical Studies in London. The Board of Technical Studies in London had certain links with London University, and that university placed facilities generously at the disposal of the individual Polish students. The London Polish Government encouraged the members of their Forces to pursue courses of study, and in fact were exceedingly liberal in the granting of extended leave to men who desired to undertake studies in this country.
There were about 4,000 students receiving help in the kind of studies to which I have just alluded at the time the Interim Treasury Committee took over. This number has now been reduced to about 2,000, but it is not possible at the present time to find 2,000 places in British universities without inflicting considerable hardship on Britsh students. In this matter it is quite clear that British students must come first, but we are hoping to continue the Polish Board of Technical Studies, so that an increasing number of men who desire to equip themselves for the, more skilled branches of industrial life will be able to get the necessary training. The number of students at what we propose to call the Polish University College will be limited to 1,350. That, of course, is in addition to such people as we are able to get places in universities. The curriculum will have an essentially British emphasis. These people are being trained to partake in the British way of life, either here or in the Dominions or in the Colonies, and, therefore, it is desirable


that the whole of the curriculum should be framed with that in mind.

Mrs. Manning: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but will he, say whether that means that any men who are trained at the Polish University College in London, will not be able to return to Poland if they want to? Surely, there is nothing binding on them to stay here?

Mr. Ede: No. We hope that all the people who are going back to Poland will do so at an early date, and every encouragement will be given to the people who want to go back to Poland, to do so quickly. People who ask for an extended educational course will, in the main, be people who intend to stay here, or to emigrate to one of our Dominions or Colonies.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the courses will, therefore, be in English?

Mr. Ede: I am really not the principal of this college. I have no doubt that most of the courses will be in English; but I should imagine that, if it were found that a number of these people, in the early stages of their courses, found it difficult to follow the lectures and practical instruction in English, there would be people capable of lecturing and instructing them in their mother tongue. That seems to me to be the only sensible arrangement, and I do not think that in a Second Reading speech one can be expected to do more than assume that the principal of this College, who is a Scotsman, will do other than see that proper educational courses are given, with proper opportunities for all students to profit from them.
There will be faculties within this University College of engineering, architecture, and economics. No Pole will be eligible for grant unless he is a member of the Polish Resettlement Corps and has had a year's service under British command, or is a civilian who has done a year's service in work of national importance. The present rate of maintenance paid by the Interim Treasury Committee to a Polish student is £200 a year. When this duty is transferred to the Ministry of Education, these people will come under the scheme of Further Education and Training Grants. These range

from a minimum of £180 to a maximum of £240 a year, exclusive of fees. There is also an arrangement made for the maintenance of impecunious students during vacation. Therefore, on this transfer I think that, as is right and proper, the majority of the Polish students will tend to benefit, and certainly not to lose, by the re-arrangement. In addition to the faculties, the London Polish Government set up a number of primary and secondary schools in England and Scotland. These were taken over by the Interim Treasury Committee, and are still being maintained. The most important of these are the Polish Merchant Navy College where 300 youths are given merchant navy training, and a girls' school at Pitlochry. These schools it is proposed to continue. Within the Resettlement Corps itself, education is the responsibility of the War Office. I know from the inquiries that I have made, that very considerable success is meeting the efforts of the War Office to provide education for these men, especially in English, so as to prepare, for contact with the outside world, those who are going into industry, and the others, getting them ready for education with English teachers.
Clause 7 deals with emigration. The Service Departments assist members of the Polish armed forces to emigrate. They are given demobilisation benefits, and the cost of their transport, and that of their wives and children, is paid. The Interim Treasury Committee does likewise in respect of civilians and dependants of members of the Polish armed forces not covered by the above arrangements, and is prepared to make grants of up to £25 to assist particularly needy emigrants. The War Office and the Air Ministry will provide similar facilities for members of the Polish Resettlement Corps, and it is for this reason that Clause 7 specifically excludes the Resettlement Corps. The responsibility of the Ministry of Labour; will, in fact, extend only to the class of emigrants now catered for by the Interim Treasury Committee.
Clause 8 deals with the provision as to service in the Forces. British people have, for centuries, objected very strongly to foreign nationals in any great number being in the British Armed Forces. They have not objected to foreign soldiers fighting for them on battlefields. The Army at Waterloo did not consist of 50 per cent. of British sub-


jects, and in the great battles with which the name of the ancestor of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford is associated, the number of British soldiers, I think, was very rarely half the forces under that distinguished general's command. That is a very different thing from having armed forces of foreign descent within this country. I need hardly remind the House, I hope, of the incident in 1809, when British troops at Ely were flogged by German troops, and the denunciation of that episode by William Cobbett, in language which I read only this morning, and which seems to me to be very mild compared with his capacity, and the outrage with which he had to deal. It secured for him a fine of £1000 and two years' imprisonment in Newgate, and, at the end of that time, he had to provide recognisances for seven years, himself in £2,000 and two sureties of £1,000 each.
Therefore, we have approached this part of the subject with a recognition of the difficulties that may arise. The present limitation is that there may not be more than one alien to every 50 soldiers, and no alien can hold an office higher than that of warrant officer. I should have thought that a regimental sergeant-major with a command of several languages would be an asset; I was limited, at the time I held the rank, by the fact that I had forgotten every foreign language except soldiers' French. Now we propose that this limit shall, for the purpose of this Corps, be raised, and Clause 8 is the Clause by which we give effect to that proposal. The restrictions were put in abeyance by Regulation 2 of the Defence (Armed Forces', Regulations, 1939. They will expire on 31st December of this year, the Regulations having been continued in force up to that date by the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946.
An extension of the period of abeyance in relation to Poles is necessary to cover the period within which it may be expected that the Polish Resettlement Corps will have ceased to exist, and the majority of Poles who have enlisted in that Corps will either have been naturalised, or will have ceased to serve with the Colours. I understand that the arrangement will be five years with the Colours as in the old days, and therefore, the limitations we propose within this Clause will, I hope, enable us to deal

with the Resettlement Corps which, although unarmed, is a military unit, and has to be administered under the laws relating to the Army while the men are in the Corps. It will enable us also to deal with the number of men who may prefer to serve in one or other of the Armed Forces of the Crown.

Mr. Piratin: Have the Government made a calculation as to how many are likely to want to join the Forces, because if we take an army of a million, then one in 50 would give us 20,000? The figure the right hon. Gentleman mentioned before was 65,000 in all, in the Resettlement Corps; how many does he expect to want to join the Forces?

Mr. Ede: I do not know, and I do not think anyone has yet had an opportunity of finding out from the men themselves. What we are doing here, we are doing for the sake of caution. I am quite sure that the arrangement is one that is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, and I hope that the men who join the Forces will, in the main, prove themselves good soldiers and, having regard to their previous period in the Forces, will be available at no distant date for naturalisation and thus become British citizens. I want to make it quite clear that we desire to see the people who remain in this country assimilated into the British people, to become acquainted with, and to follow, the British way of life. We do not regard any of the people who remain in this country as being available as military personnel, if at any time there should be any disputes or trouble in Poland. We are determined that, as far as we are concerned, they are not to be regarded as the nucleus of some anti-Warsaw Government army in this country. The whole of our emphasis is that these people have served us, and the cause for which we fought, well. They find it undesirable to return to the country from which they came. If they are not prepared to go to any other part of the world—and we will do what we can to help them if they are—we shall, if they remain in this country, do all we can to assimilate them into the British way of life, and we hope that they will accept the benefit.; which this Bill gives them in that spirit
After all, this country has benefited in the past from the intake of various populations who have not found it possible to live in harmony with the government of their own country. They have not always been very easy to assimilate in this country. Many of the Huguenots who fled from France after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes when they arrived in this country, promptly declared themselves Unitarians, and thus lost the benefit of the Act of Toleration. We have, nevertheless, had great experience in this country of the benefits that come from the assimilation of virile, active and industrious people into our stock, and anyone who recalls the great wards of Daniel Defoe's "True-born Englishman" will be aware how much justification there is for thinking that a great part of our strength comes from the fact that we, more than any other of the ancient nations of the earth, have been able to assimilate these people and get them into the main stream of our civic life. I sincerely hope that these people will come to us to strengthen us, to help us in our manpower problem, to bring to us the skill and the virility that will enable this country to emerge from its present trials, aided by the assistance they can bring.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: Poland has a long and tragic history, and I hope that today, on this limited Measure, we shall not be drawn into controversies which arouse strong passions and divide not only parties, but wide sections of opinion throughout the country. The suggestion that anyone should go back to Poland has aroused strong passions in this House before, so I shall endeavour to avoid controversy and apply myself to the main question raised by this Bill, which is: Do we by this Bill fulfil the many pledges that have been given to the Poles who served so gallantly beside us throughout the war, and do we discharge this obligation satisfactorily? To that question I think the answer of some of my hon. Friends behind me may be that this Bill is, in some respects, a little cautious; that it appears, in some of its details, to be a little niggardly, and that it is brought forward rather late. Time has been wasted, and much good might have accrued, if these steps had been taken earlier. Broadly speaking, however, I am convinced that my hon. Friends on this

side of the House, at any rate, will welcome the Bill. I am sure it goes a long way to honour the obligations which were undertaken on behalf of this country, first by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) and since then echoed on behalf of the present Government, by the present Foreign Secretary.
It is very difficult to assess the precise size of the problem with which this Bill attempts to deal. The right hon. Gentleman has given us some figures today, which I gather are quite up-to-date. On 28th January, which is less than a fortnight ago, the Minister of Labour informed the House that 52,000 Poles had enlisted in the Resettlement Corps, and last night, in the Debate which took place on the Adjournment, the same right hon. Gentleman gave a figure of 62,000. This morning, the right hon. Gentleman tells us that the number is 65,000. Things are evidently moving quickly, and it is very difficult to assess precisely the number of persons with whom we are dealing. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's figures that there are 127,000 Poles in the United Kingdom whose future may be affected by the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Ede: I do not want any confusion about the figures, or that it should be thought that there is any dispute about them. Last night, my right hon. Friend gave the figures for those who have been registered in the Resettlement Corps, and I gave the number of those who have opted. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there may be a slight delay between opting for the Corps and being attested.

Mr. Peake: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but the fact still remains, that apparently 10,000 additional Poles have enrolled in the Corps during the last 12 or 13 days. Accepting the right hon. Gentleman's figures, there are now 127,000 Poles in the United Kingdom, and of these, according to the figures given by the Minister of Labour last night, only 2,300 have found employment in this country. The right hon. Gentleman told us that 15,000 Poles were uncertain what they wanted to do, and over 26,000 have not yet been asked what they want to do. It follows, therefore, that over 40,000 Poles are at present in a state of uncertainty. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the


Government will do everything in their power to get these people to decide at the earliest possible moment what they wish to do, because I am quite sure that of all the courses they can take, the most wasteful from the point of view of our economy, and the most destructive from the point of view of moral, is for the Poles to be sitting in idleness in camps, as many of them have been doing for 18 months or two years.
I am sorry to say that my speech will, to a large extent, be in an interrogatory form, but this Bill does raise a number of difficult questions. I wish to look at the financial aspect of this question, and before the Debate is closed, I think that we ought to have a certain amount of information upon this subject. When I left the Treasury in July, 1945, I remember there was a suns of over £80; million owing to us for advances made to Polish military and civil authorities during the war, and further sums accrued between then and the signing of the financial agreement of 24th June, 1946. If I am not mistaken. the Polish Provisional Government accepted responsibility for these sums, and the agreement, among other clauses, provided that payment should be made to this country of a very large sum of money in respect of the advances we had made out of our resources to the Polish Government in London during the war years. As I understand it, ratification of the financial agreement of 24th June, last year, is held up because the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues in the Government are not satisfied, as I do not think anyone in any quarter of the House is satisfied, with the conduct of the recent Polish Elections. But, there is such a thing as cutting off your nose to spite your face, and if it be the case that under this financial agreement, very large sums of money, perhaps running to £100 million or more, in respect of the great expense to which we have been put in maintaining Poles upon our soil are due to us and can, in fact, be paid, then it does seem to me to require information on why we should refuse to ratify an agreement, under which substantial—

Mr. H. Hynd: Is it not a fact that, on the other side of the scales, there is a certain amount of gold held in London which is claimed by the Polish Government?

Mr. Peake: That is so. There are certainly Polish assets in this country, but I

think we ought to be told whether we gain or lose financially by refusing to ratify the financial agreement made in June last year.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman disapproves of the withholding of ratification, on the grounds on which ratification was withheld?

Mr. Peake: All I am trying to ascertain from the Government is, whether that is a good weapon to use in the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

Mr. S. Silverman: I cannot quite follow the right hon. Gentleman. I thought that what the Government were doing was to say to Poland, "You have done, in Poland, something very wrong, and we are not going to ratify this agreement with you, because you have done something wrong." Is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that we ought to approve of a thing of which we have disapproved, if it could he shown that we can get a financial advantage?

Mr. Peake: The hon. Member will, no doubt, make his speech in his own way and in his own time. All I am asking the Government to explain is this: If there is a very large sum due to us under this agreement, if the agreement were ratified, what on earth is the use of refusing to ratify it, in order to protest against something which has already happened. and which nothing we can now do will alter?

Mr. S. Silverman: In other words, what is the value of a mess of pottage?

Mr. Peake: Precisely. Let us look at the present cost of maintaining these Poles in idleness in this country. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he will introduce a Supplementary Estimate for £5,250,000 as part of the cost which the Treasury Committee has borne since July, 1945. This, of course, is nothing like the full bill this country has to meet. There was a well-informed article in the "Manchester Guardian" on 4th February, which estimated the cost of maintaining 140,000 or 150,000 Poles in this country at the present time, at no less than £42 million a year, and, of course, much the greater part of that cost is borne on the Votes of the Service Departments. We ought to have fuller information on


the costs to which this country is at present being subjected.
We have some figures in the Financial Memorandum, but they cover only a limited aspect of the question. If hon. Members look at the Financial Memorandum they will see that £4½ million is expected to be spent during 1946–48. But this is by no means all, because I understand that the Resettlement Corps will remain under the administration of the Service Departments, and during 1947–48 it is clear that very large numbers of Poles, perhaps 60,000 or more, will be in the Resettlement Corps. I imagine that the period of service in the Resettlement Corps will be anything up to, say, two years. I, therefore, hope chat whoever replies to this Debate for the Government will try to give us the larger financial background to this question and will tell us how much money is due to us under the Financial Agreement of 24th June of last year; what is the present gross cost of maintaining this large number of persons in idleness in this country, and by how much we can expect that that cost to diminish, as a result of the absorption of these Poles into our ordinary economic life.
Now, I want to examine two or three points on the Clauses of the Bill. Clause I rightly provides that the British Royal Warrant of Service pensions should apply to the men who have been wounded and disabled, and the dependants of those who have died, while serving in the Polish Forces. If any tribute were needed to the gallantry of these men, the fact that no fewer than 5,000 lost their lives and 18,000 were, I think, wounded is surely sufficient testimony. But it strikes me as odd that the proviso to Subsection (r) should say:
…payments under a scheme made under this section shall be limited to such as fall due for payment before the expiration of five years from the passing of this Act…
There is a power to the Treasury to extend the scheme, but it appears to be the normal expectation that the pensions paid to Polish Service personnel will come to an end after five years. I am sure that no one in the House would regard that as satisfactory. I am also sure that the right hon. Gentleman was inaccurate in saying that these Service pensions would not he payable if a man migrated overseas. For British Service personnel there are, of course, arrangements whereby if a man

migrates to any part of the British Empire, he continues to draw his disability pension. I should have thought it very desirable to have similar arrangements made for the Poles who are covered by this Bill.
Clause 2 provides for grants from the Assistance Board, and Subsection (1) of that Clause lays down the conditions which have to be fulfilled before the grant can be paid. They are contained in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)of the Subsection, and are:
that he is in need of an allowance;
that he has no work, or only such part-time or intermittent work as not to enable him to earn sufficient for his needs; and
that he is, if required by the Board so to be, registered for employment in the prescribed manner.
The Schedule provides that these conditions shall apply in substitution for the provisions laid down in the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, which prescribes the conditions for the ordinary subject of this country. I can see no difference whatever between the two sets of conditions, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour who, I understand is to reply, and who is well versed in these matters of unemployment assistance, will be able to point out what difference there is between the conditions under which a Pole can receive a grant from the Assistance Board, and the ordinary conditions applicable to our own people
Clause 3 provides that the Assistance Board shall set up camps, in which mixed communities of men, women and children can he housed. I understand that these are not the same camps as the military camps, in which the Resettlement Corps will be housed; that there are to he separate camps for people who have passed out of the Resettlement Corps, and have been absorbed into civilian jobs in this country. Am I right?

Mr. Ede: Yes. It might happen that a camp which had been used as a military camp would gradually become a civilian camp as the men in that camp were absorbed into civilian life in the locality.

Mr. Peake: I am much obliged. It may be that the actual camp will be the same place, but the point is that while in the Resettlement Corps, during the transition from soldier to civilian, the Pole will remain in a camp managed by the War


Office. After he gets a civilian job, he may be housed in a camp provided by the Assistance Board.
I want to revert to one other question connected with unemployment. Grants are to be given from the Assistance Board in certain conditions. Everybody knows that British Service personnel are credited with contributions to health and unemployment insurance while they are serving with the Colours, and that when they come out of the Armed Forces their contributions are credited to them so that they are put in a position to draw social insurance benefits. I should like to know whether any similar provision is made for members of the Polish Forces. If that is not so—and I think that probably it is not so—will they become qualified for social insurance benefits in the ordinary way, after a period, by paying a number of contributions to the scheme? I assume that after two years, or whatever the period may be, they will be covered for unemployment or national health insurance. I attach great importance to these men and women becoming entitled, as far as possible, to the full benefits of citizenship in this country.
I entirely agree that the administration of all these civilian camps should be taken out of the hands of the military authorities. In 1940, we had some trouble over camps run by the military authorities in which civilians were interned, and we achieved much more satisfactory results when one of the civil Departments took them over. I assume that the Assistance Board have some previous experience of managing, if not camps, at any rate hostels and I imagine that they are considered by the Government to be the Department best qualified to run these camps. I should have thought that either the Home Office or the Ministry of Labour might have been better qualified than the Assistance Board for this task. The Home Office built up a very sound organisation during the war for looking after 20,000, 30,000, or 40,000 or more interned people and the Ministry of Labour also have great experience of running hostels of all kinds for all sorts and conditions of people. Therefore, I am a little surprised that this job of running the camps is to be handed over to the Assistance Board, hut, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman will be able to explain that matter further.
Clause 5 deals with the temporary registration of Polish doctors and pharma

cists. It certainly surprised me, when I read the Bill, to see that the temporary registration granted to these most useful people—when we are short of both doctors and pharmacists in this country—was to expire on 31st December this year. I understand that that is only put into the Bill for some technical reason, and that there are other classes of alien doctors, registered under the Defence Regulations, whose registrations will similarly expire at the same date; that all these categories of alien doctors will have to be considered as a whole; and that something will have to be done, before the end of the year, to see that we are not deprived of the services of these alien doctors, many of whom have given the most valuable service in this country.
Clauses 4 and 6, providing for health and educational services, are clearly necessary. Clause 7, which enables certain limited grants to be given to assist emigration, is, in my view, quite unobjectionable, provided that no pressure is put on these people to go overseas. Clause 8 enables a dispensation to he granted from the limitation on the number of aliens who may serve in any unit of the British Army at one time. The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) made, I think, a calculation which seemed to show that the present limitation of one in 50 would enable an enormous number of Poles to join our Fighting Forces; but the limitation imposed by the Army Act is not on the total global number but on the number in any individual unit, and it is obvious that, if we are to accept a number of Poles in the British Army, they should have a few comrades with them, rather than that there should be one in each company or in each battalion of the British Army. In my view, this is a very wise provision. Surely, what we require is that each of these Poles—and they are nearly all young men—should do the job for which he is best fitted. Many of them are first-class agriculturists. Many, I am sure, would make good coal-miners; but numbers of them are professional soldiers, who have done nothing but soldiering for many years, and it would seem to me to be the greatest folly to sacrifice the possible services of these men, because I feel certain that the future of many of them lies in the British Army.
I sum up with a general criticism and commentary on the Bill. It will be generally welcomed as going a long way


to discharging the pledges given to the Poles who served with us throughout the war. We want as many of these Poles as possible to be absorbed into our economic life, but we do not want them to remain in isolated communities. There is a strong feeling in Scotland that there are too many Poles in too few places. I am quite sure that if we are to absorb these people successfully, they have to be spread fairly thinly over the country as a whole. We must, however, realise that, in our present plight, able-bodied men and women are the greatest asset which this country can acquire. Will the Home Secretary, therefore, consider some relaxation of the provisions of the law which requires five years' residence preceding naturalisation?

Mr. Ede: That is statutory, and I do not see how I could do that in respect of Poles alone.

Mr. Peake: The five years provision is, as the right hon. Gentleman says, statutory, but we have passed more than one Statute in recent years which has diverged from that time-honoured principle.

Mr. S. Silverman: I think that both my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman will agree that for naturalisation purposes, service in the Armed Forces of the Crown has always been recognised as the equivalent of residence in this country, and had these men been in the British Forces, there would have been no doubt that they qualified under that rule.

Mr. Peake: That is exactly the point. These men have not been serving, for the most part, in British Forces but in Polish Forces under British command, which is a totally different thing. Therefore, the great majority of them have not acquired thereby, any entitlement by virtue of constructive residence, to acquire British nationality.

Mr. Austin: On that point, does the right hon. Gentleman consider that equal treatment ought to be given to those Poles who not only did not serve in the British Forces, but who gave service in the German Forces against us?

Mr. Peake: I have always been against all suggestions of what I call mass naturalisation. On more than one occa-

sion, suggestions have been made that whole blocks of people should, automatically, be naturalised. I am strongly opposed to that. Naturalisation is an individual thing. Each individual case should be carefully sifted by the officials of the Home Office and by the police. All I am suggesting is that in the case of those Poles, who fought beside us throughout the war, and who have been given hopes in the past that they would be naturalised, some alteration might be made in the law of constructive residence, which would enable them to make application for naturalisation—when their individual cases will have to be considered on their merits—at an earlier date than would normally be the case, since many of them only arrived in this country from Italy for the first time last year.

Mr. Ede: The object of mentioning five years is so that we shall have a fairly clear idea of the way these people live, and whether they accept the British way of life. These people, who have served in the Polish units overseas under Polish officers, have been living under a way of life which is not in every way the same as ours, and I should deprive myself of a considerable safeguard with regard to the admission of individuals if I were to say that I would dispense with the five years' requirement in these cases. I hope that what I have said indicates that I am anxious once the five years stipulation has been met, to deal favourably with as many of these people as I possibly can.

Mr. Peake: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will not close his mind completely on this point at this stage. Some of these men have been refugees all over Asia and Europe in order to fight beside us, and have fought gallantly for years throughout the campaigns under Alexander and Montgomery, and I think something might be considered towards shortening the period which would give them hope of acquiring British nationality earlier than five years.
My main criticism of the Government in regard to this Measure is that they have. proceeded too slowly with the absorption of these men into our national economy. There has been a great reluctance on behalf of organised labour to permit these men to be absorbed in our economic life. It is more than a year ago since the proposal to employ Poles was first put to the


National Union of Mineworkers by the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and it was not until r7th January of this year, that the National Union of Mineworkers announced that it was prepared to agree to the employment of Polish ex-Servicemen in the pits. Even then, they were to be subject to certain very stringent conditions, for example, that the approval of the local miners' branch or lodge must first be obtained, thereby giving the local branch a complete and absolute veto at the pits.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is it not a fact that the medical profession did the same with the Polish doctors?

Mr. Peake: I daresay it was; I do not know the answer to that question. There has been a great and unnecessary delay in the realisation that we need these people in our British economy at the present time.

Mr. S. Silverman: And the doctors?

Mr. Peake: There are three spheres of employment for which they are admirably suited—agriculture, coalmining and military service. As regards both agriculture and coalmining, the Minister of Labour has laid tremendous stress upon the difficulties of accommodation. I, honestly, do not believe that the difficulties are as great as he makes them out to be. There are in the coal fields numbers of hostels put up during the war for the accommodation of trainees for the coal industry. Most of these hostels are disused, or only partly used now, and they are available for housing volunteers in the pits. Exactly the same thing applies to agriculture. Prisoners of war are being repatriated, and hutted camps, erected for prisoners of war are becoming available to house Poles who are employed in agriculture. Again, the Minister of Labour stressed last night in the Debate on the Adjournment the difficulties of language. Listening to him, one got the impression that none of these Poles could speak a single word of English, and had to be taught English before they could even be trained for a job. I have here an extract from an article which appeared in the "Manchester Guardian" of 10th February dealing with the 32,000 Poles in Scotland. Of the 32,000, 70 per cent., or something like 24,000, have applied to be enrolled in the Resettlement Corps.

Mr. Ede: It is 22,000, which is 70 per cent.

Mr. Peake: All right then, 22,000. The article states:
35 per cent. can speak fluent English, nearly 50 per cent. more can speak broken English, and only about 15 per cent. can speak no English.
It that be a fact, then the Minister of Labour has greatly exaggerated the difficulties of language. There must be tens of thousands of Poles who know enough English already to be able to take up employment. After all, to take up employment in many of the simpler jobs, a man does not want to know a great many different words. The Home Secretary spoke of his experiences as a sergeant-major during the 1914–1918 war. He knows what a limited number of words a private soldier needs to get along.
We hope that the provisions made by the Bill, and the administrative action necessary to follow up the Bill, will be pressed on with all possible haste. It appears that 10,000 have enrolled in the Resettlement Corps in the last two or three weeks, and I hope that things will go forward very quickly. It is an appalling economic and financial waste that we have had these men in camps, in idleness, for over 18 months now. The cost to the country cannot be less than £30 million or £40 million, whereas these 100,000 or 120,000 men ought to be an enormous asset to our national life. Not only that, but our economy has suffered from these insufferable delays; and great moral damage has been done to the Poles themselves, because idleness is always a bad thing, but enforced idleness is worst of all. None of us in this House suffers from enforced idleness at the moment; we all have too much to do. I hope that the responsible Ministers will press on with action under this Bill, in order to get these Poles into employment at the earliest possible opportunity. With those words, I give my blessing to the Bill.

5.6 p.m.

Mrs. Leah Manning: With the exception of one Clause, namely Clause 8, I welcome this Bill. I feel that we owe it to these Poles, not all of whom are villains, The Opposition and particularly the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) have said some things in regard to bringing these men from Italy. It was under the pressure of the Opposition that we invited General


Anders and his army to come here, and in view of that, I am surprised at the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. I do agree with him that, on the whole, it is a good thing for this race, which is a mongrel race, to be able to absorb into itself this great body of men, provided we put nothing in the way of these Poles at any time, either before they go into the Resettlement Corps, when they are in it or after they come out of it, returning to Poland. That is the first and last duty of a Pole—to return to his own country if possible. We hope that these men, in whom there is a great deal of patriotism—there is no one more patriotic than the Pole—will come to a sense of their duty towards their own country and towards the womenfolk whom they have left 'behind, and who are having a very hard time today working in that great land. In regard to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about the men taking a course at the university, I hope that nothing we spend now upon preparing them for their future life, will be allowed to militate against their going back to Poland if they decide to go.
There are one or two points in connection with the Bill, on which I hope very much there will be modification during the Committee stage. This Bill has been presented at a rather delicate time—at a time when a new Government has just been elected in Poland. Whatever the Opposition may think about that Government, it is now a fait accompli, and I hope we shall do all we can to maintain friendly relations with it, and help it to take its place in the comity of European nations. We have much to gain from Poland, which is one of the great industrious countries of Europe. Now that the Bill has come forward, I hope nothing will be allowed to remain in it, which can give any conceivable offence to the new Polish Government. For that reason I want to call attention to one point with regard to Clause 1 (3) which has already been raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It concerns people to whom pensions are to be paid. I hope this provision will be explained to the House by whoever replies. I do not know what is the general method of paying pensions earned by foreign soldiers, in our Forces or in any other way, but there teems here to be discrimination

against a Polish soldier who has qualified for pension and who, having first resided in this country, later desires to return to Poland. As the Clause is drafted he may go just anywhere; he may stay here, he may go to Timbuctoo, to Germany or to any other place, but he will not receive his pension if he returns to Poland. I know that this is causing considerable anxiety and that the ordinary people of Poland think it is a hit against them. They say, "This man has earned a pension, but he has to lose it if he comes back to Poland. Surely this is to prevent his return." They may be quite wrong, but anybody reading the Clause cannot gainsay that, as worded, it is a discrimination against Poland and that no other country is mentioned. I feel, therefore, that we should have some explanation or that the Clause should be amended in Committee.
I also draw attention to another point which has already been raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It is the question of why so much is being placed on the shoulders of the Assistance Board. I should have thought that the camps which are being set up and which, after all, are to house men who will be going out to work in mines, in agriculture and so on, might be administered by the Ministry of Labour, which has great experience in running such hostels. They are not charitable institutions, or institutions for men who are not earning their living and not supporting their families. There seems no reason why these men should be placed under public assistance unless nobody else is willing to receive them. I do not know whether the Ministry of Labour, the Home Office and other Ministries and Departments concerned with this Bill—of which there are many—are refusing to have the charge of these men, so that public assistance is the only administration left that can look after them. But I feel that it is the wrong authority and would give them the wrong standing in the eyes of the rest of the community. I would have said that for their sake we should try to place them under the Ministry of Labour, which has great knowledge of how to run camps from which men are going out to work.

Mr. S. O. Davies: It seems to me that the hon. Lady, and possibly other hon. Members, are a little confused on this point. The Assistance Board is not coming under, or associated with, public


assistance. It will be under the Ministry of National Insurance. I interjected that at this point so that my hon. Friend might be put right.

Mrs. Manning: Of course, I meant the Assistance Board and should have used that term at the time, but we all know that the confusion which led me to say "public assistance" on two occasions, is one which will continue to reside in the minds of a great many people, even when the Assistance Board takes the place of public assistance, as it will under the new Ministry. Because of that, and very much more because of the experience which the Ministry of Labour have acquired in their labour camps, I hope this point will be reconsidered.
I should like now to refer to the Clause which deals with education. I am delighted to learn of the excellent work which has already been done in the education of Poles, whether in the university standard, or in the elementary standard —for those who are perhaps almost illiterate—or in the secondary stage. Nevertheless, I am a little anxious with regard to what the Home Secretary said. He told the House that the education which is to be given at this Polish University College in London is to be entirely English and is to be run entirely on English lines.

Mr. Ede: I chose my words very carefully on that point. I said it would have a British emphasis. The hon. Lady and I, as teachers, know the objection to using the word "bias," and I therefore chose the wording, "it should have a British emphasis." But as one proceeds from the known to the unknown, I presume that it will start with the recognition of the Polish outlook of the student.

Mrs. Manning: It is, of course, bound to proceed from that point. My right hon. Friend and I, both being teachers, know that that is the only possible way to educate everyone—by proceeding from their own standpoint and from what they already know. However, if from that point onwards, we begin to move the emphasis—again, I will not use the word "bias" which is not favoured in educational circles and make it completely English, I feel that it is very likely that these men, with their original Polish outlook, will be in a difficult situation. If they stay in this country they will be

neither fish, flesh nor fowl. If they go back to Poland, they will be in an even more difficult situation because they will have been trained, as my right hon. Friend says, with a peculiarly British emphasis.
What I should like to ask is whether any kind of advice is being sought from those who know Polish life and who know the new Poland. To put it bluntly, is the Warsaw Government being considered at all, in the education arrangements that are being made for these men at the Polish University College? I think it is a matter of paramount importance, and one of prestige for the Polish Government that they should have some consideration in the kind of education which is being given to these men who will they hope—whatever we may think about it—go back to Poland eventually. I believe that they will go back there in very large numbers, as has been shown by the number who have already gone back, even at a time when there has been considerable propaganda against doing so, when everything is unsettled and difficult in their own country, and when, to some extent, they have not been having too bad a time here. This raises great expectations about their return in the future, and is one of the most pleasing features of the whole situation.
I know that other hon. Members will deal with Clause 8 very fully and I will only say that it fills me with a great deal of dismay, from two points of view. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that if there is one thing we ought to do for Poles if we are to take them from the Army, it is to disperse them as widely as possible. If these men are to stay here and learn about the British way of life, and forget some of the bad things they have learned during their tour in Italy, and under their officers during the time they were in the Second Army, it will be by mixing with honest-to-God British Tommies, miners and agriculturists, and not by being put into groups of their own. Although it is always nice for a man to have a pal, and one would not object to two or three of them being together, I hope that if they are taken into the Army they will be dispersed as widely as possible. Although there are many other objections to that Clause, that is the objection which I wanted to state, and it arose out of what my right hon. Friend said. I hope the


Bill will be given a Second Reading. It has come rather late. These men have been left in idleness for some time. I do not say they have not made good use of the time in more ways than one, some of them a little objectionable; but it is a good thing that the Bill should have a Second Reading, because it is time the matter was settled, and I believe this Bill will settle it. Although there are some things in the Bill that I do not like, I believe they can be amended in Committee.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: I cannot agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) that the Warsaw Government ought to be consulted on the kind of education that should be given at the Polish University College. I think I am right in saying that the British Government are not consulted on the kind of education given in any university in this country, and I hope they never will be. Education ought to be free from any kind of Government interference. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that, if these Polish subjects are to be educated in this country at British expense, what the Home Secretary has called an emphasis of the British way of life should be part of their education. I hope the hon. Lady was also wrong in suggesting that these Poles will be neither fish, fowl nor good red herring. I hope they will be accepted in this country as potential British citizens, with full and equal rights if they so desire, and that they will be treated accordingly, and that if that is their desire later to leave this country and return to Poland they will be able to carry with them recollections of fair, just and equal treatment, so as to maintain happy relations between their own country and this country.
I think we can all appreciate the fact that it is a very serious decision which these Poles are being called upon to make. I think none of us will underestimate the gravity or seriousness of the decision when a man has to decide whether he will, perhaps for ever, forsake the country in which he was born and proclaim a desire to become a citizen of another country. I think we shall fully sympathise with them in the difficult nature of the decision which they have

to take. It is a decision which every hon. Member can be thankful he has never been called upon, and is never likely to be called upon, to make. For that reason, while I agree that it is very important that this Polish Resettlement Corps should be set up as soon as possible, we ought to be very careful not to impose an unreasonable time limit on those Poles who have not yet made up their minds. We were told by the Home Secretary that, so far, there are some 40,000 Poles who are either undecided or have not yet been approached. My attention has been drawn to a War Office order, issued on 2nd February, which I consider to be very disturbing. It is to the effect, in paragraph 12, that
Officers and men who have not signed on as members of the Resettlement Corps will be given seven days in which to do so. If after this period they have not signed, they will be taken to a camp near Hull, then by snip to Cuxhaven near Osnabrück there demobilised, given 400 marks, a civilian outfit, and left to fend for themselves.
A similar order has been issued to naval and air force personnel by the Admiralty and Air Ministry. I think that is quite wrong, and I hope those orders will be withdrawn, because it is not right, in circumstances of this kind, to issue what is, in effect, a seven days ultimatum to the men to come to a decision in a matter of this kind. I welcome this Bill wholeheartedly. In my opinion, it is not only a just and wise Bill, but it is also an act of great statesmanship on the part of this country. I welcome it, and the reception it has been given, because I think it indicates a change of attitude to foreigners coming to this country which, to me, is very pleasing. At one time there was a great deal of xenophobia in this country. We were an insular people, and for that reason we were apt to regard every foreigner with suspicion and hostility. That is typified in the story of the British navvy who was reported to have said, "Here is a foreigner, heave a brick at him." But I believe there is another tradition in this country, the sort of tradition which received the Flemish weavers in this country, which received the Huguenots, which received the victims of the pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe in the '80's and '90's; the tradition which has opened the gates of this country to victims of religious and political persecution, and as a result of which this country has reaped very great benefit. These men have been the means


of increasing the prosperity of the country and making very valuable contributions, through their descendants, to the life of the nation.
Today the addition to our population of people from outside is perhaps our greatest national need. The shortage of manpower is something which is not merely acute, but something which, unless it is overcome, threatens our position in the world as a great Power. Without an increase in our manpower, towards which this Bill can make a valuable contribution, it will be impossible to make that industrial recovery which is necessary if we are to achieve a better world and that better future for our people which every hon. Member desires to see realised. All of us are concerned today with the coal shortage, but we appreciate the fact that if we could get 100,000 more men into the mines, our anxieties with regard to coal would disappear in a way which could not be achieved by any other means. In that connection, therefore, I am disturbed to learn that it will be necessary to obtain the consent of every miners' lodge or branch before Poles are allowed to work in the mines in any district.
I hope that the T.U.C. will use their influence to try to get a more generous attitude towards the employment of Poles in the mines. It might have been all right for organised labour to take up that attitude in the past, but today we have in power a Government pledged to a policy of full employment. If the T.U.C., who support that Government, really believe in that policy, and in the pledges of the Government to carry it out, they ought to welcome the introduction of Polish miners into the mines in the largest possible numbers. Without that addition to our manpower in the mines, it will be increasingly difficult for the Government to realise their policy of full employment, as is witnessed in the country today by the fact that, owing to the shortage of coal, millions of men and women are temporarily unemployed.
We must remember also our great commitments overseas, which necessitate the maintenance of Armed Forces much larger than they were before the war. I understand that something like a million more men are now in the Armed Forces than were there before the war. For that reason, we welcome the Bill, which shows us one way in which the deficiency of our manpower can be made up. I believe that

the great majority of the Poles, if once they made a decision to stay in this country, would become so used to the British way of life, that their stay in this country would become permanent. The British way of life is something that grows upon one. As the Poles got to understand it more, and as their ties in this country were strengthened, it would be natural that they should wish to stay here.
In addition to the industries that have been mentioned in which the Poles would be of service to the community—mining and agriculture—I believe that the Poles are badly needed also in the textile industry. There was a flourishing textile industry in Poland before the war, and I am sure that many of these men who are, in the main, quite adaptable, would be able to make a valuable contribution to the relief of the manpower shortage in our textile industry. I am glad that the Bill is generous in its provision for these people. The provisions in regard to pensions, assistance if they fall by the wayside. medical attention and education are all on a generous scale. It is only applying to modern times a very humane regulation laid down in the Old Testament:
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
I am glad not only that the Poles are being accepted in this country as honoured guests and potential citizens, but that they are reaping the advantage of our social, educational and health services. It means that they feel in every way attracted to the British way of life and also they have a sense of equal citizenship with all the other members of our community. For that reason I hope that the Home Secretary will, at the earliest possible date, consider the naturalisation of these men. There is no special virtue in the five year period, in the sense that it must be observed in every particular case. The fact that these men have been fighting on our side during the war, ought to be taken, in some measure, into account. One hopes that this kind of occasion is not likely to recur, and I hope that it may be found possible to make some special provision to reduce the five-year statutory provision, without the fear that a dangerous precedent will be created.
I am glad that we are treating the Poles, who were our Allies in the war, in this generous way. Just as we remember


the services rendered by the Poles, I hope that we shall always remember—even when we are provoked by some of them, perhaps—the services which all our Allies in the war rendered to us, in the days of our greatest danger. I am very anxious that the Poles should receive just and generous treatment from the people of this country. I hope that the same kind of attitude will be adopted towards all our Allies. I have a regard and a grateful affection for what the Poles did for us, but that does not mean that I have any less regard for what Russia did for us in the war. Even when there has been difficulty in the relationships between Russia and ourselves, even when, like so many other people, I tended to become provoked by it, I have fortified myself always with the recollection of what Russia's heroism meant to us in the war and of the contribution she made to our efforts and to our victory. I therefore welcome wholeheartedly the proposals of the Bill as a wise and generous Measure, and I trust that it will be implemented in the near future, with great advantage to the Poles and to the people of this country.

5.37 P.m.

Mr. M. F. Titterington: May I support the excellent observations which were made by the Minister in introducing the Bill? It is one of the finest expressions of internationalism that has been made on behalf of His Majesty's Government. For that reason, the Bill should commend itself to a large number of Members. I am also deeply thankful to him for his observations in regard to the policy behind the Bill, which he suggests is an "orderly and appropriate demobilisation." I am sure that that point of view will come home to us, and that it is one from which no hon. Member will dissent. May I agree also with the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), and the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), that there is a profound advantage to be derived from what one may call "the cross-fertilisation of culture" represented by the presence of the Polish people in this country. I am actuated in my support of the Second Reading also because my seniors spent a. considerable time in Warsaw as representatives of our textile trade, and I feel that it is incumbent upon one to recognise the terms and conditions which the representatives

of the industry, to which I have the honour to belong, enjoyed in the years gone by. The corporations and associations in the textile trade will feel, I am sure, that it would be, in a sense, a return to the Poles for the cordial reception which British industrialists have had in Poland in the past years.
Finally, the wool textile industry is making a great gesture, because it has actually offered work to the dependants of men and to our Polish friends, who may come here to work in an industry which requires further assistance. That is not merely an economic consideration. It is a logical and sincere outcome of the hospitality that Bradford extended to our Polish Allies. From that point of view, we are expressing internationalism—which is the exchange of one nation with another and the exchange of the people who represent those nations—in the form to which quite a large number of hon. Members give, at least, their nominal adherence. For those rather precise reasons I support and endorse the very interesting outline and explanation which the Minister has given of the Bill. One could make certain reservations in a controversial way, but that does not prevent one endorsing the Bill without reservations at this stage. As I say, for those relatively precise reasons and without any effort at oratorical embellishment, I support the Second Reading.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Michael Astor: With due deference, the Home Secretary's speech was very much better than the Bill itself. His broadminded and very human approach to the subject gave us hints of better things to come, better things than I can find in the Bill. I cannot take the slightly complacent point of view of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). The sins of omission in this Bill are very considerable.
The Home Secretary made two points which I would like to take up. I should like to say incidentally that he emphasised the point that the vast majority of opinion in this country is, in no way interested in using the unfortunate circumstances of a small minority of people, as a whipping block for their own violent political beliefs. The Home Secretary made the point that he was not responsible for the Polish Resettlement Corps. That is a


very apt point. Whenever the Poles want to get anything done, they have to deal with six or seven Departments, and that is one point which should not go unnoticed. The Home Secretary also made the point that His Majesty's Government have decreed that these Poles will not be made to return to Poland against their will. That is very important, and will meet with the approval of the whole House; but, on the other hand, life can be so intolerable in certain circumstances that these men find themselves with very little or no alternative to returning to their country. What constitutes a tolerable life is not merely having enough to eat and having exercise; there is also the psychological aspect of having something to live for and having some prospects.
This Bill is a palliative. It is introduced because of the situation in which we find ourselves in relation to the Resettlement Corps. But I would like to look briefly at the background of the Resettlement Corps and see who these people are. The Resettlement Corps really consists of three elements. There are the Poles who escaped from Europe in 1940. We may call them the Dunkirk Poles. I would remind the two Communist hon. Members—the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is just entering the House—that these Poles fought Fascism before the intervention of Russia in the war. Then there are those who escaped from Eastern Poland and joined General Anders' Army and fought with great distinction. The third element, a minority element, are those who were serving in the German Army and were captured by us. There is a great deal of misunderstanding over these particular men and I will refer to them later. Then there is a fourth element which strictly speaking does not come within the orbit of this Bill, although it indirectly affects the approach to the Polish question—the large number of Poles in the British zone of Germany, who were in the German labour battalions and who are now really displaced persons. They are living in ghastly conditions. They have refused to go back to Poland, but they have really practically no alternative to going back and meeting goodness knows what fate there. The only reason I mention this element in relation to this Bill, is that it is chiefly this element which has got the Poles a bad

name. The Poles generally have a very good name up and down the country, and it is that nucleus which has given them a bad name. The conditions under which they are living are conducive to bringing out any criminal instincts which may be in their midst and to creating conditions which foster the very worst side of them. That is happening, I believe, on a very large scale. Without being emphatic, my information is that there are 150,000 of these people in the British zone alone. The Bill does not deal with the Poles in India, the Middle East and Africa. They are a different matter.
That is the background. Today, according to the Home Secretary, we have some 65,000 Poles in the Resettlement Corps in this country, and we may take it that it will be a potential of 85,000 Poles. Taking into account the other figures the Home Secretary gave, that is a conservative estimate. In the war these men were very acceptable to us, they fought very gallantly and really were heroes and staunch allies. Today, we are being a bit complacent about them. These Poles are positivly rotting with boredom in many cases—absolute abject boredom. They have centred their hope-in this country. Their hopes in their own country have gone, for the time being, at any rate. They had various reasons to believe they might be allowed to acquire British citizenship. Now they are forcibly unemployed, and they have no hopes or prospects. The shortcoming of this Bill is that it does not provide what is needed—prospects.
This is going on concurrently with a major manpower crisis here. We have really committed a twofold crime. We have let down our Allies in their real hour of need, and we are letting down the country, in not mobilising all the resources we can to increase our man-power. Why is this? I believe there are two elements conducive to this in varying degree. One is the fear on the part of the Government of Russian reaction to our treatment of the Poles here, and the other is the fear of the trade union movement in this country.
There are those two factors. On the first, I think there are certain indications that we shall be a little less sensitive to Russian reaction and criticism. I sincerely hope so. Surely, any government has learned by now that appeasement does


not pay, particularly where it infringes a matter of principle? With regard to the trades unions, they have been influenced chiefly by the slanderous character given to a certain element in the Polish Resettlement Corps, and there has been a certain amount of propaganda from private persons through one or two newspapers and hon. Members of this House—a very few —giving these people a bad name.
Who are these people who were captured from the German Army? I have taken some considerable trouble to find out. Some of them fought in the First Polish Armoured Division. I came across them in Normandy at the outset of the battle, fighting with the Poles having only been captured three weeks previously. Mostly they were the simple minded peasant type with no education and no political convictions. They had a pistol put at their heads, a most ghastly ultimatum from the Germans. The T.U.C. could not think that the Germans would give them pleasant terms. They were given no alternative at all, and were driven to fighting in the German Army. When we captured them and made them fight on our side, they were accepted willingly by their colleagues. In General Anders' Army they were carefully vetted and a good many of them thrown out. This war has shown this regrettable fact, that you can take a fairly illiterate person from almost anywhere and, if you handle him intelligently, and with toughness, you can make him fight in any Army irrespective of the cause for which he is fighting. I would ask the Government and the T.U.C. to remember this. I would ask them to consider also that, much as the trade union movement is admired in this House, if it directs Government policy, it is really going right outside its own bounds. For it to fulfil the functions of government is quite incredible. Once again the Government, if they do not exercise foresight, will shortly have to react to a crisis or to a near crisis, and you react to a crisis because you have not taken any positive action to create the reaction in the country which you want. You have not set the tune in the matter. If, however, the Government will really get to the bottom of this problem, they will see there are two things that are important. One is that we should not have a festering mass of people becoming increasingly bitter and

disillusioned and bored. The other is the manpower problem. Now is a good moment to go to the country when the country is feeling the pinch. I am sure the Government can do it, and I sincerely hope they will. I have heard it said that some of these Poles are a menace to world peace, but to suggest that the Polish Resettlement Corps is a menace to world peace is the biggest rubbish that has ever been said. The only way one could possibly make them a menace to society—and that is their limit—is by making them so bored and frustrated and ingrown in their life that they become anti-social.
It may be said that one of the difficulties of producing a bigger charter, a more red-blooded Bill than this, is that there is a grave shortage of training personnel to fit these people for industry and civilian life. To that I would say that half the problem is psychological. The physical propensities will follow. The important thing is to raise their morale, to give them something to live for and some hope. Until that is done, I do not see how they can be expected to take a balanced decision as to what they want to do. I sincerely trust that we shall not hear that the Bill is adequate because of emigration on a large scale. There was a suggestion that Brazil and the Argentine would take large numbers of these Poles, but I have reason to believe that neither of those countries can carry out that idea, quite apart from their present addiction to importing Latins rather than Slays. In any case it avoids our manpower problem. Secondly, I hope we shall not be told that no plan is needed because of the attitude of a few unions towards employing Poles, because that is only a drop in the ocean and does not begin to tackle the problem. Members of the Labour Party are very hot on humanitarianism. I have heard Members of the Labour Party preaching about the evils of forcing people into unemployment in the most deplorable, dull, dreary and drab conditions. All I can say is, what will happen to these Poles if we let them go on much longer like this, if we do not do something much more drastic than we are doing now?
For my own part I do not agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) who suggested that these Poles should go to occupied Germany. I see that there would be certain international complications, but I think the two difficulties which would arise


would be these: either you would have a mercenary Army lasting for some 20 years, which would really be a compulsory mercenary Army because it would have virtually no alternative, and that would be a deplorable state of affairs, or these Poles would occupy Germany so as to allow British soldiers to be demobilised. Later their turn would come to be demobilised, and we would suddenly have to raise the level of our conscription to fill that gap. Any Government which had to do that would be asked to do a very awkward thing. Most important of all, it would not really tackle the problem, which is to allow these people to be good and useful citizens. I describe the Bill as a rather milk-and-water affair. We accept it, because it is certainly better than nothing. But, to my mind, it is a palliative. It is like giving an aspirin to a man who has to have his leg amputated. I urge the Government to take the bull by the horns, and to devise a real charter for these people for two reasons. First, from the humane point of view and from the point of view of supporting our allies, and, secondly, from the point of view of our own national expediency, with this one object in view, of allowing the Polish Resettlement Corps to play its proper part in the resettlement of the world.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd: This is a wonderful country At a time of national stringency, and when the Opposition have been studying Supplementary Estimates, watching every penny of expenditure, they are not only supporting. but encouraging the Government to spend £4,250.000. plus the cost of the Resettlement Corps for these 100.000 Poles. I am not against that: I welcome the fact that the Government, whether it is too late or not, are now trying to settle a burning problem, which is causing a tremendous amount of disquiet, especially in Scotland where these Poles are even more obvious than in London. In London, it is impossible to go into a tube train without seeing some Poles in uniform. In Scotland there is strong public criticism of the way in which they seem to be able to live better than the ordinary population, and to have unlimited transport to get about, and the generous way in which they seem to he treated
The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Astor) called this Bill a milk-and-water affair, and said we were letting down our

Allies. From what he said, I failed to find out what he had in mind, and in what respect the Bill was full of shortcomings. When I speak of criticism about generosity, I have in mind a recent case which I think worth citing in this Debate. It is the case of a man named Starszak who told the magistrate in a police court case that he was living on a pension of £6 a week. From correspondence with Government Departments concerned, I found that the man was getting a pension of £5 4s. 9d. a week from the Interim Treasury Committee for Polish Questions for himself, his wife and two children. No one would say that that was an excessive amount for a man to live on, unless it is compared with the situation of a British subject, who in the same circumstances, if he were relying on the public assistance committee, would get only 60s. 6d., or, under the Assistance Board, 65s. a week. The extraordinary thing was, that whereas the Treasury Committee were paying this man £5 4s. 9d. a week, on the ground that apparently he was unfit for work of any kind, he had previously been examined by the Ministry of Pensions who decided that he was suffering from an anxiety state, in no way connected with service, and that his disability amounted to what they call 6 to 14 per cent. assessment. A British subject would get nothing in those circumstances.

Mr. Astor: When I spoke of a charter, I was speaking broadly of a policy to absorb these men into industry and to give them a nationality. But when the hon. Gentleman refers to increased expenditure, and extravagance, I would point out that there is a very big dividend to be reaped, as all these men are potential workers.

Mr. Hynd: I am obliged for the explanation I want to speak of the arrangements for the Polish Resettlement Corps which, despite numerous Questions in this House, still seems to be a little obscure in its organisation. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), for example, quoted a few months ago a War Office Order, dated 2nd February, which he said gave those people a time limit of seven days I am inclined to agree with him that that is an unreasonable time limit, but I think the House will agree that there ought to be some time limit. This afternoon we were told by the Home Secretary that 26,400 Poles have not yet


been asked to make a decision, but 15,400 have been asked, and have not yet made a decision. Are these people to be allowed to sit tight, and do nothing at all? It is essential that some time limit should be given for them to make up their minds whether they are going into the Corps or not. What will happen to those who do not enrol? According to the War Office Order which was quoted, they are more or less to be put into the category of displaced persons. If anyone has an alternative suggestion; I would be interested to hear it. Obviously, if they refuse to go into the Resettlement Corps, they cannot be expected to sit tight on Army pay and conditions for the rest of their natural lives. That would not be fair or reasonable for the people of this country.
Last night we were told that there was a certain amount of delay in enrolling these people, because they had to be screened to find out how many of them were Fascists. We were not told what happens to those who are screened, and found to be Fascists. What happens to them? I hope some answer will be given when the Minister replies. There is a separate resettlement scheme for the R.A.F. I would like to know why that is. I hope nothing I am saying will be regarded as implying that I am behindhand with any hon. Member in paying tribute to the Poles who fought in the Battle. of Britain, or anywhere else with the British Forces. Yet why should there be a separate scheme for the R.A.F.? What about other ancillary forces connected with the Poles? They have a Red Cross organisation, and, I believe, a White Cross organisation, and they have their own Y.M.C.A. Are these people to be taken into the Resettlement Corps, or demobilised straight away, as I think they ought to be, and treated on the same basis as all the others?
This afternoon the Home Secretary mentioned quite casually that these Poles were disarmed. I should like to be quite certain about that. Only the other evening I happened to be boarding a train at Euston, and noticed two Poles carrying tommyguns. Whether that was because I was on the train, I do not know. I do not think they were the only Poles I have recently seen carrying arms. I should like to be quite sure that these people are to be disarmed, as the Home Secretary told us in May last year.
Up to now, all hon. Members talking about the Corps have used the term "men," whereas of course it includes women. Many women are going about in the uniform of the Polish forces. Who are they? Are they administrative staff, all bona fide recruits, who were in the Forces during the war, or has there been any enlistment? Is there any possibility that women have been put into uniform since the war? I would like to be quite certain about that, and what their position is to be under this Bill.
Turning to the actual terms of the Bill, I should like to reinforce the remarks made about Clause 2 by several hon. Members who have already spoken, particularly that part about payment not being made unless the recipient is in the United Kingdom, and to repeat the question about what is to happen, for example, to a person who comes within the terms of the Bill and gets a pension, but who goes, not to a part of the British Empire—I think that will be covered—but to another country, perhaps another European country or a South American country. One point has not been raised in relation to Clause 1. That is, it provides for pensions for people who were disabled, or for the dependants of people who were disabled,
in consequence of service during the 1939 world war.
Several hon. Members have already drawn attention to the fact that many of the Poles in this country served in the German Army. Under the literal interpretation of this Clause, it would, I suggest, permit pensions to be paid to men who were disabled whilst serving in the Germany Army, or to the dependants of those killed while serving in the German Army.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Much against their will.

Mr. Hynd: Whether it was against their will or not, was that interjection seriously meant to suggest that the Bill would provide pensions for men who served in the German Army, or for the dependants of men who were killed while serving in the German Army? I really cannot believe it, and I would ask the Minister to deal with that point when he replies.
I come to my main criticism of this Bill, which is that, in several Clauses,


there is provision for the setting up of special camps, special health services, special education services, and finally, under Clause 8, a relaxation of the rule about aliens serving in the British Forces. Yet, all through the Home Secretary's speech the emphasis was upon getting these people absorbed into the British way of life, as he repeatedly said. That being our aim, I suggest that the whole emphasis of the Bill is in the contrary direction, that is, into segregating the Poles into separate Polish organisations. We see here, in Clause after Clause, provision for the Government, either themselves or through agencies, to set up these separate camps, separate hospitals, separate schools, etc.
I imagine that, in practice, that is likely to mean that the officers of the Polish Forces, who are now in charge of these people, will be in charge of these schools, these camps and hospitals. I suggest that is wrong, if the object of the Bill is to absorb them into the British way of life, because it is doing the very opposite. Mention has been made, for example, of a Polish girls school at Pitlochry. I happen to know it. It is a very exclusive school, and provides a kind of education such as very few girls in this country are getting. That is an exclusive institution which should not be allowed to continue. Let us have it, provided it is open to other people. Let us get these girls mingled with the other girls in this country, if they are to settle down in this country. If they are not to settle down in this country, I suggest we should then give them every facility to go back to Poland at the earliest possible date.
Here I differ with my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning). She rather suggested that the education should be along narrow, Polish nationalist lines, with the object that they should eventually go back to Poland. Frankly, I do not think that we should go to the expense of giving Poles the university education she had in mind, with the object of sending them back to Poland late. I am willing to support everything in this Bill that provides all necessary health, education and other facilities proposed, provided it is with the sole aim and object of absorbing them into the life of this country. We also find, in Clause 7 (1) which deals with emigra-

tion, a curious phrase to the effect that assistance will not be given
to former members of any of those forces emigrating immediately on their discharge therefrom,…
What does that mean? Does it mean that any Pole who is enterprising enough to make arrangements to emigrate will get no assistance, but that any one who says, "It is not my responsibility" will get assistance, and will be sent overseas by this Government? Perhaps we might have a word of explanation.
On the question of Clause 8, dealing with service in the Forces, I was glad to hear the hon. Member for East Surrey dissociate himself from the suggestion that anything like a Polish armed force ought to be sent to the occupied countries. I hope that the Minister will be able to go just one step further tonight, in his reply. I am afraid that if we are to allow an unlimited number of Poles to serve in any one unit—that is the implication of what has already been said—it will mean that we shall have complete, or almost complete, Polish units as part of the British Army. If that is so, can we have a pledge that any units of that kind will not be sent to any of the occupied countries, because that would be carrying out, on a smaller scale, the suggestion which has been condemned by the Government spokesman?
One hon. Member has also mentioned that he did not think the Bill went far enough, because there were certain other people involved. The Home Secretary told us that he intended to draw into the Bill as many people as possible. It is quite true that there are many people in more or less the same category as a lot of the Poles who are to be catered for by this Bill. For example, at Rimini, in Italy, there is a large camp of 10,000 Ukrainians who are in a similar position, perhaps a better position, than the Poles who fought in the German Army, and who will be catered for by this Bill. There are other categories which I need not list. If we are to extend the Bill we might possibly bear them in mind. But, quite frankly, I do not know where the limit could be drawn if we once started along that line. It seems a little strange that we should accept the view so complacently that this Bill, and all these special provisions, must be provided for Poles and nobody but Poles.
I thoroughly agree that the main object of the Government ought to be to get the Poles to return to Poland. I feel certain that there has been undue pressure upon them by their officers and others to remain in this country. That is my opinion. I had the advantage of being one of the Parliamentary Delegation which went to Poland last year. I saw there how bitterly the people in Poland resented what they regarded as our encouragement of these people to remain in this country. We, representing this House, Members of all parties, did our best to tell the Poles that we were not encouraging them to remain in this country. I think that we succeeded, to a large extent, in convincing the people to whom we spoke, but there are certain things in this Bill that lead to that suspicion. The number of newspapers and the amount of propaganda that have been allowed to circulate in this country have encouraged the suspicion that strong pressure has been brought to bear by these men's officers and others to induce them to stay here. I do not say that in every case the object has been the creation of a counter-revolutionary army. There may be a lesser incentive. Some of these officers have "cushy" jobs, looking after these people, and they are not in a hurry to have them dispersed.
I think that the ancillary organisations I have mentioned should be dispersed immediately. The Polish Resettlement Corps should be completely disarmed. I do not believe they are completely disarmed. Furthermore, they should be taken out of the control of their own officers and out of uniform. Unless we go to that extent there will be cause for this suspicion in Poland, and elsewhere, that we are in danger of setting up a State within a State. The Home Secretary claimed that the object is to absorb the Poles into the life of this country. That will be a good thing, I agree. I would support a Bill on those lines—

Mr. Astor: The hon. Gentleman says that it is a good thing to absorb the Poles into the life of this country, and yet he wants them to go back to Poland.

Mr. H. Hynd: I hope I have not given a wrong impression. My main object is that as many Poles as possible should go back to their own country. There is a job for them to do there. It is a big job which will mean harder work than they

will be asked to do here, under more severe conditions than those which exist in this country.

Mr. McGovern: Is the hon. Gentleman also in favour of the view that all alien refugees who came to this country during the war should be asked to go back to their own countries?

Mr. H. Hynd: Certainly, I am, but I am with the Government, and everybody else, in agreeing that none of them ought to be forced to go back. I say that they ought to be encouraged to go; I think the Poles have been unduly discouraged. I do not think that the real conditions have been properly put to them and—

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The hon. Gentleman said first that they ought to be encouraged to go back to Poland. Then he said that he is entirely in favour of encouraging Poles to become part and parcel of the people of this country.

Mr. H. Hynd: Of course.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Those two arguments seem to me to be entirely antagonistic.

Mr. H. Hynd: They may seem to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to be antagonistic. I claim that they are not contradictory at all: they are complementary. My first object is to get the Poles back to their own country. It is their patriotic duty to go to help in the rebuilding of their country. On the political plane, I say that if they do not like the political set-up in their country, they should go back and fight against it. They should do their best to get a different regime. That is their business. Those who do not want to return after the situation has been properly explained to them, should not be forced to go back. Those who make up their minds to remain here, should be absorbed into the life of this country. The terms of the Bill as it stands, will not ensure that they will be absorbed into the life of the country. It will divert them into little groups here and there, which will be Polish communities within the British community. I think that is quite wrong. Therefore, I hope the Bill will be amended. If it is amended in that way, I shall have great pleasure in supporting it.

6.24 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The hon. Member for Central


Hackney (Mr. H. Hynd) said that the main object of the Government was to get the Poles to go back to Poland. If conditions in Poland were entirely different from what they are—I refer to the Communist set-up—and the administration were changed so that these people could go back, they would not require any pushing. They are all most anxious to return to their own country. There is no nation which is so patriotic; no nation which loves their country more than the Poles. They do not need any urging to go back; but how is it possible for the Poles, in the opinion of any hon. Member, to go back to Poland under the conditions which exist there today?

Mr. Benn Levy: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman. If it is as impossible to go back to Poland as he alleges, how is it that the Poles are going back already at the rate of 250 a week?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Some of them are going back to Poland, of course; that is a fact, but the vast majority of the Poles here will not return to their homeland under the conditions which exist there. The result of the recent elections, which were so fully and amply condemned in this House only a few days ago, is another obstacle. Any Pole who is opposed to the Communist regime which is existing in Poland today, will not return. The actual position of the Government is merely a continuation of the Lublin Committee set up by Russia. The Government is Communist, and anyone who is opposed to the Communist regime in Poland is looked upon as a Fascist, a reactionary and a traitor to his country, and he is dealt with accordingly if he goes to Poland. Under those conditions, how do hon. Members consider that the Poles should go back to Poland?

Mr. Austin: The hon. and gallant Gentleman maintains that Poles will not go back to Poland in any circumstances. How does he reconcile that statement with the fact that 61,000 have already returned and another 19,000 have opted to go back, and are probably on their way?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: In answer to a previous question, I said that I was quite aware that a certain number of Poles have gone back. Of course, we do not know the reason why they have returned. They may have thought that they would be

able to see their relatives, from whom they have been separated so long, if they can find them.

Mr. H. Hynd: Might it be that patriotism is the reason?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: It may be. There are immense obstacles which prevent the mass of the Polish people in this country, and those in Germany and other parts of Europe—displaced persons—from returning to Poland under existing conditions. I repeat that the elections as carried out by the National Provisional Government should be condemned. President Beirut, who was a member of the Comintern for 20 years, broke his pledge, and the elections were neither free nor unfettered. There is no democracy whatever in Poland, and it is that which prevents the Poles from going back, however much they love their country, as undoubtedly they do.
I welcome the Bill as a recognition of what we owe to the Poles who, in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, rendered such invaluable service to the cause of the Allies. They were the first and the best Allies that we had in the war. I do not propose to take up any length of time in recounting their service. As everybody knows, they fought in many spheres—in France, Norway, Syria, North Africa, Italy and again in France, when we finally pushed back the Germans. A Polish paratroop brigade took part in that memorable exploit at Arnhem. It was the only foreign brigade which took part. At sea and in the air their forces rendered most valuable services. We are apt to forget the immense assistance given to the Russians by the Polish home underground army, and the immense advantage which that force proved to the Russian offensive. They worked under immense difficulties, and, while the Germans were still in complete occupation of Poland, they carried out their acts of sabotage against the communications of the Germany Army, thereby rendering immense assistance to the Russians.
It is also often forgotten that the army under General Anders, for which the Russians could only supply rations and equipment for 30,000, was 70,000 strong, and that General Anders was then told by Marshal Stalin that it had better go to the Middle East. That army went out there and we know what terrible priva-


tions they suffered. I only mention these facts in order to stress the immense enthusiasm and loyalty of the Poles in their desire to fight against our common enemy and to be able to go back to their own country to find an independent Poland, where they could have elections in which the free will of the people would prevail, and in which they would be only too glad to play their part.
I welcome very much the fact that the Poles are going to benefit by this Bill, but I ask the Minister to reconsider the question of the time which is given to the Poles in which to decide whether to become our nationals. Those who will not go- back to Poland will be absorbed into this community and they will be of immense advantage to us. Our manpower is short and we must find more. Surely, then, it is better to absorb these people as soon as possible, because they may get tired of waiting. They have been waiting a very long time, even years, in this country, while doing nothing at all, -and there is nothing so devastating for a human being as to be doing absolutely nothing. That is one reason, I am afraid, why many people in the United Kingdom think rather badly of the Poles. The great thing is to get these men employed in the industries of this country as quickly as possible. Very few have been employed up to the present time. Cannot the Minister speed up the absorption of these Poles into our industries? It would be of immense benefit to this country, and the sooner it is done the better. I hope the Minister will consider that matter and be able to place in employment these people, who are now hanging about doing nothing. Let him not dash their hopes, because they have been dashed often enough. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Ambassador and his staff—all those who were concerned in the administration in this country when they were recognised by this country—come under this Bill?

Mr. Ede: The hon. and gallant Gentleman interrupted me to ask me that question, and I gave him a categorical answer. I should be in trouble for tedious repetition if I gave it again.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I am very glad it is true.

Mr. Ede: It is not more true, because I have said it twice.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I am very glad to have that reassurance on the point. I welcome the Bill as a recognition of what is due to the Poles, and I hope its provisions will be put into operation as quickly as possible, because, otherwise, the Poles will again lose heart and we shall lose the immense benefits which we can obtain if we can only absorb them quickly.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Piratin: I beg to move, to leave out "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add "upon this day six months."
In moving the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and myself, the House will understand that, by it, we propose to reject this Bill. I do not expect to carry the House with me in that, but I hope it will pay careful attention to the remarks I have to make. My proposal for the rejection of the Bill is not a categorical one. There is much in the Bill with which I entirely agree, but there is a certain basis of the Bill with which I cannot agree, and I hope the House will follow me on this point.
In Clause 1 (1) of the Bill, the Poles are divided into three sections—A, B, and C. No one will disagree with A and B; my concern is with C. That section concerns the Polish Resettlement Corps, and that is the section about which I am concerned. It might be asked why, if that is all I am concerned about, I did not wait until the Committee or Report stage and move an Amendment then to delete paragraph (c). The reason is that, though the Minister, in opening the Debate, did not give us the detailed information, by far the largest number affected are in category C. I think that is accepted by all here. But, if I had moved the rejection of only that part of the Bill, the result would have been the unbalancing of the whole Bill, which would be to render it meaningless. It is, therefore, necessary to oppose the Bill itself, and, further, for the reason that the points I have to make actually go somewhat wider than that particular Clause, or, indeed, any other.
I want to make my position clear with regard to the Poles in this country. A


number of Questions have been put down to different Ministers in the past year by myself and other hon. Members about the Poles in this country. Too often, I regret to say, this has appeared to be a matter of black or white. Let us, therefore, get a balanced view of this. I have had several replies from Ministers on this question, and I want to make some comments now. First, there is no black and white. Many of the Poles in this country have been in the Services and have fought on our side with the greatest gallantry. Let us accept that fact. Second, though I believe that most of the officers of the higher ranks are reactionary, I am not prepared to suggest that the majority of the Polish Forces in this country are reactionary. I think that the minds of these men, in most cases, have been deliberately confused. We must separate them in this way if we are to get at the facts.
Further, we have been told by the Minister that there are 53,600 who fought for the Germans, and on one occasion, in answer to a Question of mine, we were told that these men came over in May, 1945. That was the month in which the war in Europe ended; therefore, really, they were captured when the German Army surrendered. At no time did they come over to fight in the British or Allied Forces, but they were captured by us. The hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) interrupted earlier in the Debate to suggest that they had been forced to fight with the German forces, but neither he nor I can know whether each one of those 53,000 was forced to do certain things We do not know, so I am prepared to believe that some of them could not stand up to the rigours of the occupation and that others were quite willing to fight in the Germany Army. I am being reasonable, and I think these facts must he faced. I do not like to see all these 53,000 being lumped together with our gallant Allies The Minister an other hon. Members who have debated this question from time to time, have spoken of our "gallant Allies" I agree with that phrase being used to describe those who have fought against the Nazis, but I think it is an insult to them to Limp them with this 53,000. I would like to see some sort of segregation. The hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. H. Hynd), with whom I was in poland Last year, too has asked what was going to

happen to those who were willing supporters of the Germans and who served in the German Army, after they have been screened.
In view of the fact that I am opposing the Bill, I think that I should make that explanation and that the House should be under no misapprehension. In future, if I or any other hon. Member sees fit to put down a Question which might be thought to cast a reflection on the Poles in this country, I would like to make it clear that no such reflection would be intended on my part in connection with Allies who fought with us during the war. But we are concerned with the lumping together of good and bad. The Government have not taken sufficiently stringent measures to separate the good from the bad.
In case there should be some dubiety on a further point, as perhaps the Home Secretary knows—I have consulted him on at least one occasion—I am all in favour of this country maintaining its tradition of providing sanctuary for those who come here. The Home Secretary knows, from the cases which I have taken up with him from time to time and from the discussion which we had together on the general problem, that I am in favour of extending that sanctuary to such Poles as may require it.
But why this particular favouring of the Poles? I remember Debates in this House —and, in particular, an Adjournment Debate raised by an hon. Member on this side—with regard to others who have fought in the Services, and who would like to remain in this country. There are, for example, the men who have married English girls, and who would like to stay in this country, but are not given that opportunity. The only alternative is for the English girls who have married such men to go to their respective countries. Why, therefore, this particular privilege for the Poles?

Mr. Ede: If the hon. Member will allow me, I would like to point out that it is now some months since I announced that, where an alien was married to an English girl, he would be allowed to come to this country and to remain here, if he were a person of good character.

Mr. Piratin: Certainly, but I have not developed my point. I thank the Minister for his intervention, but my point is not


only that he should be allowed to come to this country, but that he should also be given the privileges embodied in this Bill. If we are in need of foreign labour, why not open the gate wide and give such people the same privileges as those proposed to be given to the Poles under this Bill? We were told by the Minister of Labour that he is now considering the question of bringing displaced persons to this country.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): Is not the hon. Member aware that when the people to whom he refers come in under a Ministry of Labour permit, they are given those advantages?

Mr. Piratin: I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that information. As I was saying, the Minister of Labour has said that he is considering the question of bringing in displaced persons. May I ask, therefore, why this matter should have taken so long? The right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) said, in opening this Debate for the Opposition, that one of the defects of this Bill is its dilatoriness. On the other hand, he implied that we have already been "looking after" the Poles in this country, but have only now brought in this Bill to make the whole thing legal. If, for all this time, we have been looking after the Poles, why could we not have taken a more active decision with regard to displaced persons in Europe who—and I say this with respect to any Poles in this country—have, in general, suffered far more than the Poles? The hon. Member for Central Hackney gave the example of the Pole who was receiving a pension of £5 4s. a week in respect of himself, his wife and two children. I would point out that the ordinary average worker in this country does not get more than £5 a week when employed. Therefore, that is not comparable to the plight of some of the displaced persons. I want sanctuary to be given, but I do not want it to appear that discrimination is made for a certain purpose. I will now come to that purpose.
I am opposing this Bill, in particular, because it is proposed to recognise the standing of the Polish Resettlement Corps. At no time have we had a Motion before the House on which to Debate that question. It has been raised in foreign affairs

Debates, but there has been no Motion. This is the only opportunity which has been provided, when a Motion is actually before the House, for discussing the matter. The establishment of the Polish Resettlement Corps is not only an affront to the Polish Government and a hindering of its progress; it is also a dangerous move for this country to maintain a body of men under a reactionary leadership. Perhaps the House will allow me to quote from a statement made by General Anders in July in regard to the Polish Resettlement Corps. He said:
The Polish Resettlement Corps will be organised on a military pattern within the framework of the British Armed Forces. It will be commanded by a Polish command and a Polish 'cadre,' and will retain its interior and exterior Polish character. As far as the organisition of the Polish Resettlement Corps is concerned, as a principle, the divisional, brigade, regimental, etc., units will be maintained. The soldiers will also retain their Polish distinctions of their military rank. A 'wing' of the Navy and a 'wing' of the Air Force will also form a part of the Resettlement Corps. The chief authority of the Polish Resettlement Corps will be the Commander of the Polish Resettlement Corps.
On more than one occasion, we have been told by the Minister—

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: I think that that was only temporary.

Mr. Piratin: Yes, it may only have been temporary. The Minister may also argue that that may be the view of General Anders and not the view of this Government, but can the Minister dispute the fact that General Anders and his officers will have no little say in the conduct of the Resettlement Corps? If the Corps is intended to be a body for transferring men from a military to a civilian life, we can well imagine what that civilian life is going to be like if it is under the leadership of such people. But why have the Corps at all?
The Minister has never given a satisfactory reason for establishing the Corps. It would have been possible, and, in fact, is still possible, to transfer these men from a military sphere to a civilian form of life without the necessity of such a military or near military organisation. I should like to know whether, at any time, the present Polish Government have been consulted on the question, and whether they have asked to be consulted about it. Have they not expressed their opposition to the Resettlement Corps, and have they


on the other hand, suggested alternative methods of helping the Poles in this country? Is it not a fact that the Polish Government have accepted, as was stated earlier by the hon. Member for Central Hackney, that there would be some Poles who would prefer to remain in this country, and have they not offered their assistance and co-operation, their consular protection and emigration facilities, provided that these men could remain Polish citizens although living in this country?
The Polish Government could not possibly acknowledge—and nor could we in similar circumstances—such an organisation as the Resettlement Corps. On no occasion were they consulted about it. The decision was made here, it was put before the Polish Government, and there it was. If the Minister can deny this and can make a statement to the contrary, I am prepared to look into the matter further. This Bill was likewise drafted without any consultation with the Polish Government, and yet these men are still Poles and will be Poles for some time. After all, it is not a question of an individual but, as we have been told, it involves something approaching 150,000 people. The Polish Government have not been consulted, neither have they been allowed to express an opinion on a matter which concerns this large body of their people.
This lack of co-operation is a reflection on our Government's foreign policy. I believe it is something which could be overcome even at this stage. Co-operation is needed, and I think that if there had been as much consultation with President Bierut or with ex-Prime Minister Osabka-Morawski as there was with General Anders, there might have been a happier conclusion for the whole of the Polish people in this country. There has been too much consultation with General Anders and too little with President Bierut.
We are asked to agree to the Second Reading of a Bill which will involve spending £4,500,000 in the coming year for certain limited purposes. As other hon. Members have pointed out, there will be an addition of some. £30 million and, therefore, nearly £40 million a year are to be spent. We are entitled to have far more information regarding the purpose for which this money is proposed to be

spent, to ensure that none of it goes to outside organisations or for political propaganda purposes of a subversive kind. We are entitled to know these things, and I think that other hon. Members also would like that information.
These, therefore, are the basic reasons why I cannot agree to the Second Reading of this Bill. It does not treat the Polish citizens in this country as individuals, but it treats the bulk of them on the basis of membership of the Resettlement Corps which, in my opinion, is a reactionary organisation, and this is a great mistake on the part of the Government. There are a few remarks I would like to make concerning the Bill itself. Reference has been made to the question of pensions. If the Government wish to be reasonable in this matter, they should grant pensions to Poles even if they decide to leave the country. When the Home Secretary was interrupted on that point, he said, rather flippantly, I thought, that the reason it is not proposed to give pensions to Poles leaving the country was due to difficulties of exchange, and that they might not get the same value in another country as they would get here. I think that was rather a flippant answer which does not cover the question, and I would like more information on that point.
I now come to Clause 8 concerning the question of the Armed Forces. The question I asked the Home Secretary when moving the Second Reading was pertinent. It was to this effect: If, according to the present rules, we are allowed one alien for each 50 British soldiers, that would give 20,000 in an Army of a million. As only 60,000 have so far opted to join the Resettlement Corps, are we contemplating that one third will join the Forces? Hon. Members have been under the impression that, in addition to helping the Poles find their feet again, we shall also have a valuable source of manpower. The Government, however, are providing accommodation for more than one third of them to enter the Armed Forces. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds was not effective. He said the present rule providing for one in fifty applies to particular units, that there may be some who would like to be with their comrades and, therefore, with a company of 150 it would allow only for three, and three would not provide suffi-


cient company. I would like to make this observation—and here I agree with the hon. Member for Central Hackney. The moment a foreigner determines to join the British Army, even before he is a naturalised British subject, he has already determined to conform with the British way of life—an expression which has been used in this House, though I have a different interpretation for it than hon. Members opposite. In that case the hon. Member for Central Hackney was quite right, providing the foreigner in question could speak the language, and, of course, he would not be of much use in the Army as a sergeant-major unless he had some elementary knowledge of the language. Why should he not be allowed to join English, Welsh or Scotch units? Why allow this flexibility, and why only for Poles? I support the contention of the hon. Member for Central Hackney that this is a loophole which will create what will amount to a mercenary force of Poles supported by the Government and from British funds. Therefore, if the Government cannot withdraw the Bill, this Clause ought to be deleted.
I observe that the Polish President, when opening the Polish Parliament last week, paid particular attention to the question of encouraging Poles, both in Poland and outside, who have not yet played their part in the reconstruction of the country, to do so. He said that a new Bill would be brought before the Polish Parliament, by which a political amnesty would be granted. In particular, he emphasised the application of that Measure to all those Poles who were abroad. It is rather upsetting that this Bill should be introduced within a week of the newly elected President of Poland emphasising the fact that he wished to encourage everyone to return to Poland and that there would be a political amnesty. Poland needs manpower, and if hon. Members raise the question of manpower, we all know there are other ways of solving the problem— [HON. MEMBERS: "Really?"] Oh, yes, but I am not entering into a controversy on that subject now. Poland has lost six million men. That is well known. Poland has suffered from the war far more than we have. However, that is as it may be; we are not discussing history, but the fact

remains that Poland has lost six million men, and no one can deny that they need manpower. We should also remember that when we speak of our gallant Allies, in addition to the 100,000 in this country, we are speaking of hundreds of thousands in Poland, and we are speaking of the Polish nation.
We have not done enough to encourage the Poles to return to Poland. I submit, we can still make amends for that. Let us help them to return. If we have to look after the Poles still in this country, let us look after them as ordinary individual citizens, with their full rights in this country and with the consular protection of their own country. Those are the grounds on which I have moved this Amendment.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I beg to second the Amendment.
I wish to say that my colleague, the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin), has, from the beginning of this Parliament, tried to shape himself in such a way as to make himself a very serviceable Member of this House. I am sure he has demonstrated by his speech tonight the anxiety which he himself has to fit in with the natural course of events in the House. Perhaps I, being an older and more experienced Member, will be excused if I am not as careful and amenable as was my colleague.
The question of the Polish Forces in this country is a disgrace to a Labour Government and to members of the Labour Party. Just consider the feeling that has been expressed by hon. Members opposite about the Poles. The right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) said there was a lot of feeling against the Poles in Scotland. He said the trouble in Scotland arose because there were too many Poles in too few places, and that they ought to be scattered. Utter nonsense. The trouble in Scotland arises because the Scottish working class understand what the Polish Corps means, just as the Tories understand what the Polish Corps means. The workers in Scotland are against the Polish Corps for the reasons that the Tories are for the Polish Corps. An hon. Member has said we must not forget that the Poles were in the war before the Russians. Do we give them special credit for that?

Major Legge-Bourke: Yes.

Mr. Gallacher: We do give them special credit. All right. The Russians were in the war before the Americans were in the war. Do we give them special credit for that? I stand for a free and independent Poland, and always have done. Fifty years ago the Poles came to this country. Where did they go? Did they go to Ulster, which is represented by a very noisy defender of the present Polish Forces? Did they go to places round about England? Very large numbers of Poles came to this country and went to Scotland. There were large bodies of them centred in two places: Ayrshire and Lanarkshire, and they were made welcome, and shown every hospitality. They built their homes there, lived their lives there and reared their families there, and the working class of Lanarkshire and Ayrshire could not have wanted better associates. But most of them were refugees, Poles who were glad to get out of a Poland which was being hagridden by Kaiserism, Tsarism and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Was there one Tory anywhere in this country, or in this House, at that time supporting the Poles and fighting with the Poles for an independent Poland? Tell me the name of one. At that time, 40 odd years ago, I was on platform after platform with Polish speakers, joining with them in fighting for freedom and independence for Poland. Where were the Tories?

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: The hon Member says he fought. How did he fight? Did he go and fight in Poland?

Mr. Gallacher: That is a term which we use in this House. There is such a thing as political fighting. The hon. Member should not make himself look like a ninny by making such an interjection as that. I was on platform after platform, and in demonstration after demonstration; and all the time the Tories in this country were supporting Tsarism. What was the fight we had in 1905 and 1906? Who was it who stood up in this House to oppose the moving of a Loyal Address? Keir Hardie, because there was to he a visit to the Tsar of Russia, but no concern was shown for the Poles at that time by the other side.
Hon. Members must understand that it is very easy to make propaganda among the Poles in this country. It has only to be said, as the Tories and, unfortun-

ately, some Labour Members have said, that the Russians are in control in Poland. Saying that provides all the argument wanted to keep these Poles here. Many of them are very fine working-class lads, but that sort of propaganda provides all the argument wanted for keeping them here and preventing them from going back to their own country. That is because of the terrible hatred of the Russians bred in generation after generation of the Polish people. Just consider the generations who lived under Tsarism. Most of the Poles in this country, or from 90 to 95 per cent. of them, are Catholics, and very devout Catholics. Under Tsarism they not only had political persecution, but they had the most terrible religious persecution. In Scotland, when I was at school, during history lessons we use I to have a couplet about a mother nursing her baby. It ran like this:
Hush ye, hush ye, little pet ye,
The Black Douglas shall not get thee.
In the poorer homes of Scotland there was this great fear of the Black Douglas. But it was as nothing to the fear of Tsarist Russia that existed in the breasts of the Polish people. The children of Poland were nursed into this hatred of Tsarism, and of this political and religious persecution. Therefore, by saying that Poland is being run by Russia, it is easy to arouse prejudice among the Polish Forces. It is a criminal thing to do, but it is being done.
It has been said that we cannot ask these Poles to go back because of the existing conditions in Poland What conditions do exist in Poland? There is a Socialist and Communist Government in Poland; and. of course, the Tories do not like that. The Government in Poland have taken over the land and divided it up among the peasants. Of course, General Anders does not like that, and the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and his hon. Friends opposite do not like that. When General Anders came back from Italy he gave a Press interview at which he said: "I am not a politician. I am a simple soldier." There are some funny fellows among these simple soldiers. He said: "I am a simple soldier. All I want is to get my stables back." He is very fond of horses, and he wants to get his stables back. But his stables were part of an estate. and the estate was necessary to maintain the stables. All this non-poli-


tician wants is to get his estate back, but he cannot get it because the peasants have got it. There is a Socialist and Communist Government there, but it is condemned. The right hon. and learned Attorney-General and the right hon. and learned Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) were in Nuremberg at the trial of the worst criminals amongst the Nazis. The trial lasted month after month, and we are told it was a demonstration of British justice, and the method of applying British justice. Why does not the Minister of State, or the Foreign Secretary and the Front Bench, apply the same method of justice to Poland? Why is it they take information from one side, and one side only? Have they got any evidence from the metal workers' trade union? [Laughter.] Hear them laughing. To these Tories the metal workers are inferior beings. Have they any evidence from the miners' union, from the railwaymen's union, from the dockers' union? No. They have not an iota of evidence from there.

Major Legge-Bonrke: Evidence of what?

Mr. Gallacher: All their evidence comes from the representatives of the old ruling class in Poland—or from the Press of this country; and the Press go to Poland with instructions. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] Oh, yes, they do. I ask the Minister of State what were the instructions which were given to him in this country, the instructions from the "Daily Express," at an Ayrshire by-election? They were to report only Conservative meetings and to interview only the Conservative candidate, and not to mention the Labour Party or the Labour Party's meetings.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): I do not see that this has much to do with the Bill, but since I have been mentioned, may I say that I have never had such instructions in my life, and that if I had had such instructions I should have taken them to my trade union?

Mr. Speaker: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I have been wondering for some time what this has to do with the Bill.

Mr. Gallacher: But an hon. Member on the other side said we could not ask the Poles to go back to Poland because of the

conditions in Poland. But the only evidence they have of conditions in Poland is from one side. I was saying that information is got from the Press, but that the Press have instructions what to report. In Ayrshire, for instance, there were instructions given to reporters. Instructions are given to the representatives sent out of the country. I have any amount of evidence to show that the reporters are instructed. There is no reason whatever—whatever the Tories may think about it—for Members of the Labour Party to take any other attitude than this, that these men should return to their own country.

Mr. McKinlay: Would my hon. Friend tell me what the instructions were in February, 1941, in Dumbartonshire, when I was kicked around somewhat—the instructions to the Communist Party?

Mr. Gallacher: That is an entirely different matter. The Communist Party may make a decision to support or oppose at any particular moment. If they take that decision it is done openly. But that is an entirely different thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes?"] Any political party can do that. In Caithness, the Tory Party have been discussing for a considerable time whether to run themselves or give a free run to somebody else. We have that sort of thing going on. We have had occasions in the past when the Labour Party has considered whether to support or oppose candidates. But that is something entirely different from the Press sending out representatives with instructions to report only one side, and I maintain that the Press representatives in Poland—

Mr. McAllister: On a point of Order. The hon. Member has made an allegation against the Minister of State, who was a colleague of mine in Glasgow. I know the Press never give such instructions to any of their staffs and I think the hon. Member might in decency withdraw that statement.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member made a statement that the Minister sent out instructions to the Press to report only one side. That is going beyond what ought to be said in Parliament.

Mr. Gallacher: I am not prepared to withdraw. No, Sir, because it is the truth.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of Order. I want to be sure whether I understood your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. If a Member of this House believes something, and takes the responsibility—I do not know whether it is right or not, and I do not care for the purpose of this point—that he has to take in making the statement, that instructions were given to the Press to do this, that or the other. why is that out of Order?

Mr. McAllister: Further to that point of Order. The statement was not that the Press in general gave instructions to reporters. The statement was that the Minister of State, employed by a news paper, was given specific instructions, and since the Minister of State denies that those instructions were given, the hon. Member might in decency withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: That is the point. The Minister did get up, and he denied this accusation, and I then said that I thought it was very improper for the hon Member to carry on with this allegation. I realise perfectly well that any hon. Member has responsibility for any statement he makes, but if the Minister denies an accusation made against him, then I do not think it ought to be repeated.

Mr. S. Silverman: I respectfully agree with that. But I venture to think that it may be that, inadvertently, in giving your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, your words may have gone further than you intended them to go. I rose for that reason because, as many of us thought, what you were saying was not that that statement about the Minister of State, which he denied, ought to be withdrawn—we would all recognise that at once. Of course, it ought to be withdrawn, if it is denied. But, Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that the words used by you went much further than that; and that what you seemed to be saying was, that it was wrong for a Member of this House to say to the House that general instructions were given by the Press to their representatives in Poland to report only one side. That has nothing to do with the matter.

Mr. Speaker: I shall look at the OFFICIAL REPORT very carefully, and if I see I was in error I shall be much obliged to the hon. Gentleman

Mr. Gallacher: I am quite prepared, it the Minister insists in his denial, to go

with him to Ayrshire and take in evidence the "Scottish Daily Express" during that by-election.

Mr. Nicholson: What has this to do with the Bill?

Mr. Gallaeher: I leave it there. It the Minister wants to take it further, I shall be happy to take it up. But the important thing is that the conditions in Poland are of such a characer as to necessitate the return of these men at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Nicholson: May I ask the hon. Member a question? It is a serious question. I am not meaning to score off him in any way. But has he any first-hand experience, or is he proposing to get any, of conditions in Poland?

Mr. Gallacher: One does not always have to have first-hand information or first-hand experience. One can get information from various sources. Hon. Members opposite get information from one source; I get mine from another source. I have also discussed this with those who have gone to Poland. I have a general idea of the situation. I know every man is wanted for the reconstruction and the rebuilding of Poland. As the hon. Member for Mile End said, when one talks here about how we must be loyal to our allies, the impression is given that the Poles in this country were our allies and that the Poles in Poland were our enemies. That is the sort of impression one gets. The Poles in Poland fought battles a hundred times more difficult than the Poles out of Poland.
The first people to get out of Poland were the Government, but the people of Poland continued the fight, and if anyone talks about degrees of loyalty, those degrees should be favourable to the people of Poland and to the Polish nation. Let us consider that, and help by every possible means to build up the Polish nation and its economy. It is very important for the resettlement of Europe that Polish economy should be built up. There is a greater opportunity now than ever existed before. Does anybody want to restore the Polish Corridor? Surely, nobody would be mad enough for that; here is Poland with a great seaboard that makes her the neighbour of every country in the world, and her people should be building up her economy, her


agriculture, heavy industries and shipbuilding that will bring her into contact with every country. That is what the Poles should be doing. The hon. Member who spoke from the Front Bench said that these Poles were very valuable for agriculture and industry. That is what they are wanted for in Poland more than anywhere else, and if you can build up agriculture, heavy industry and shipbuilding in Poland, you have a chance of balancing the economy of Europe, and putting an end to the situation in which all the heavy industry was in Germany and all the countries about were satellites.
It is very important not to keep the Polish people here but to get them back to Poland as quickly as possible. The days of Tsardom have gone and the days of political and religious persecution have gone.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—Yes, they have gone, and these Polish men and women, if they are true to themselves and to their fellow Poles, if they are true to their country, will not accept this Bill, any more than we should accept it. They will be desirous of getting back at the earliest moment to their own country, to help to build it up and make it a new and prosperous country. For these reasons I am absolutely against the Bill.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not fully understand the purpose of the regrettable speech to which the House has just had the misfortune to listen. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) stated—which is perfectly true—that it would be a good thing for as many Poles as possible to go back to Poland, but the question he did not face was this: Is he prepared to compel arose Poles who do not wish to go back, to go back against their will? All his oratorical flourishes and appearances of self-excitement are quite useless, unless he is prepared to answer that question, and unless he is prepared to compel these men to go back against their will, he should support the Bill. If he opposes the Bill, he should have the courage to get up, as I hope he will now, and say he is prepared to force these men to go back compulsorily.

Mr. Gallacher: If I had the power and authority, I should be prepared to use that power and authority to put these men back into their own country. If a special case were brought to my notice, I would

give consideration to it, but my power and authority, if I had it, would be directed to getting them back at the earliest possible moment to their country.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I see. It is now perfectly clear that it is the declared policy of the Communist Party, or at any rate of 50 per cent. of it, to use compulsion in respect of these men who have served this country and our Allies in time of need. I have not the slightest doubt that there will be no support whatever for that view in this country. I think others would prefer to remember the fact that these men, not only in the Battle of Britain to which the Home Secretary referred, but in the shambles of Cassino, fought as magnificently for the cause of liberty and democracy as any people in the world, and it is a shameful thing that an hon. Member of this House should be found who is prepared to get up in this House and say he is ready to compel such men to go back when they do not wish to do so. Does the hon. Member for West Fife think that men would willingly leave the country in which they have been brought up, in many cases leaving their homes and families, to start a new life in a strange land, unless some tremendous force were working on their minds? Is it not obvious, even to the hon. Member for West Fife, that men would have a natural longing to go back to the country in which they were brought up; and is it not obvious that there must be some tremendous consideration in their minds to make them unwilling to go back? In face of that manifest fact, it is a shameful thing that the hon. Member should be prepared to treat these men in this way.
I will not waste the time of the House in dealing any further with that outrageous speech, but, in contrast to the hon. Member for West Fife, I will address my observations to the subject-matter of this Bill. I join with the criticisms which were levelled so effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Astor) against this Bill, on the ground that it is somewhat inadequate and that, well intentioned as it undoubtedly is— and no one could doubt the Home Secretary's good intentions—it does not in point of fact go sufficiently far to discharge the very great obligations which all decent-minded people in this country feel towards these men. Clause 1 has the important limitation that the benefits, equivalent to the benefits given


by the Royal Warrant, are only to be paid while these men are in this country. I should have thought it desirable that certain of them should be encouraged to emigrate to our Dominions, where the demand for manpower is as urgent as it is here, and perhaps will be longer-lived. It must be a great discouragement to men who obtain payments under the Royal Warrant to know that if they go forth to Canada or Australia, or such other of our Dominions as will welcome them, they will lose the payments under the Royal Warrant. I hope that before the Bill goes into Committee. the Govern. ment—the Minister of State, perhaps, who from the fact that he is making such assiduous notes appears as if he is to reply—will indicate that in Committee they are prepared to consider going a little further and extending the benefits under the Royal Warrant, at any rate in respect of men who go to other parts of our Empire.
Then there is the limitation in Clause 5 in respect of doctors and dentists I am perfectly certain that all hon Members appreciate that in the case of professional men it is necessary to plan one's career and one's practice just a little further ahead, perhaps than in the case of salaried workers The uncertainty of the limitation of the effect of this Clause to 31st December must have an adverse effect upon that quite limited number of doctors and dentists who are concerned. I hope we may have some indication that a longer term policy in respect of these men may be put forward by the Government in the course of the further discussions on this Bill
There is another point. concerning the limitation upon the use of these men in the Armed Forces It is quite unnecessary to remind the House of the grave difficulties of the recruiting campaign which the Secretary of State for War has initiated I do not favour keeping these Polish soldiers fine soldiers though they are in Polish units, but I wish the Government would consider the suggestion which has already been made several times in this House. notably by the hon and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G Jeffreys) that such men should he allowed to join a British Foreign Legion These men could join. with other people of foreign origin, a unit, officered by British officers. on the same

which was maintained so successfully by the French Republic for many years. I hope that the use of some of this trained military manpower in a British foreign legion will be considered. I am sure that no Member who has seen these men in action will dispute their military qualities. It is obvious that the international aspect has to be considered, but I would remind the House that what the French Republic have done so successfully for 50 years, should not be beyond the capacity of this Government to carry out.
There is one other consideration to which I should like to draw attention It arises, not so much from the precise terms of the Bill, as from its administration. The Home Secretary said that the purpose behind the Bill was to assimilate these men into our system, and I am sure that that is the most satisfactory solution. but it appears, only too clearly, that remarkably little has been done in that direction so far. The Minister of Labour told the House, at a late hour last night. that only 3,200 out of these scores of thousands have, so tar, been placed in employment. I hoped we might have some encouragement that the miserable rate of placings would he accelerated These men have been here for a very considerable time. Almost all of them are of a very high standard of physical fitness. and many have had wide and valuable experience in different forms of industry and in agriculture. In view of our manpower position, this is surely a somewhat pitiful result from the labours of the Government
There has been a suggestion that some of the great trade unions are opposed to the policy of employing these men I hope we may have a denial of this, because were it true, it would be a very grave reflection upon the statesmanlike qualities of the men who have the great responsibility of conducting the affairs of these most important trade unions I hope we may have a direct denial that trade-union opposition is preventing the employment of these men, and an assurance that they are to be used I hope, before this Debate ends, we shall have an assurance that no obstacle will be allowed to stand in the way of employing willing, able and efficient labour and still more important, that in the matters of administrative action there will be a


real change of heart on the part of the Ministry of Labour, so that suitable work, and plenty of it, will be found for these men. I have not criticised too harshly the terms of this Bill, and I hope I may be allowed to say that I welcome its introduction, if it can be treated as an instalment of what is undoubtedly the payment of a debt of honour.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. McGovern: This Bill presents a considerable problem for the people of this country, but in dealing with this difficult situation, the Government have acted wisely, moderately and tolerantly towards the Poles already in our midst. It is recognised that the esablishment of aliens in the life of any country presents tremendous difficulties, and arouses passions, whether it be, as in the past, people coming from Ireland to be designated "Irish aliens in Glasgow," or whether it be the Poles. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) made a great error; the majority of the foreign people in Lanarkshire are Lithuanians and not Poles. When it is sought to establish a large number of aliens, the thought naturally springs to the minds of many people, especially in Scotland where there are 60,000 unemployed, "What justification can there be for bringing them into the country when we seem unable to absorb the manpower attending the labour exchanges at the present time?" The hon. Member for West Fife and the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) should not he too insistent on this demand to send the Poles back to Poland, because one of the most popular demands you could have, especially in London, is for the sending back to their respective countries, of all the refugees who came here during the war.

Mr. Piratin: The hon. Member has referred to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife. The House heard our statements, and I wish to remind the hon. Member that I did not say these people should be sent back. I made my statement. The hon. Member was here at the time, and he should not misinterpret me in this way.

Mr. McGovern: There was that differentiation between what was said by the hon. Member for Mile End and what was said by his hon. Friend. The hon.
Member for West Fife, with his usual Communist thoroughness, was prepared even to use brute force to put the Poles back into Poland, but the hon. Member for Mile End, no doubt recognising the delicacy of the situation, would induce them by other means to go back, and would favour the absorption into civilian life of all those refusing to return. I would remind the House that this country has in the past been a home for refugees who refused to accept governments in their own countries. There were Lenin, Litvinov and Karl Marx who refused to accept the dictatorial authority of a Government which used its powers to persecute individuals. When the hon. Member for West Fife and the hon. Member for Mile End are so insistent on the development of the national life of Poland, let them remember that they are Members of the British House of Commons, and their work is to try to develop the national economy and the national life of Great Britain. Instead of paying heed to instructions which come from abroad, they should pay heed to the desires of the people in this country.
It cannot be denied that, the Polish Army fought heroically. I remember, when the war was upon us, the insistent demand which induced the Poles to get into the difficulties they are now in. It was the Government of Great Britain, the Government of Neville Chamberlain, with the support of every section of the House, which said to Poland "Stand fast against Hitler ", arid from that moment they put up a desperately heroic struggle. But there were large numbers of Socialists and Communists in Germany who fought in the German Army. [An HON. MEMBER: "And some were interned."] Yes, but large numbers were not interned and went into munition factories, and served in lines of communication, and the Forces.

Mr. Stephen: They are in the Communist Party today.

Mr. McGovern: They are running that country, taking over the Government, and speaking in anti-Hitler terms, though their voices were never heard at all during the war. I was opposed to the war right through, and it seems that the world is now beginning to think that it might have been better off if it had hesitated in 1939 instead of being engulfed in its present difficulties. In passing, let me say this. As against my position, these Poles


fought. They deemed it to be their duty. They stood up to the aggressor, and lost their country. Many of them are here now. Whether it is right or wrong, a large number of them refuse to go back to Poland. I think we can go so far as to say that there has been a stimulation from some of the Polish officer class for them not to go back. I want to be fair. But there are some Members of this House who do not seem to profit by developments. They think in terms of the old Poland, its old nobility, its old ruling class, its old landlord class. I have as great a hatred for that class as any man in this House. But when I find that 150,000 Poles want a redemption of the pledges that were made to them at the outset of the war, in return for the services they have rendered, then I give them my support.
On the other hand, while there has been pressure from the officer class, members of the Communist Party who have found themselves in positions in trade unions have used the utmost pressure on these men to prevent them being absorbed into the industrial life of this country. In the mines, some time ago, there was an insistent demand to prevent these Poles being absorbed into that industry. I say, quite frankly, that the political pressure is coming not from the working class, but from the Polish Lublin Government that is dominating Poland. Many men would not have cared to go back into Hitler Europe; can we blame the men who refuse to go back to Poland? We must back the Government in this logical, decent attempt to meet this situation and deal with those people who are left on our hands. There is talk of the cost. When we were paying out £15 million or £16 million each day during the war nobody thought then of the cost. That is a part of the cost of war—financing those who stood up for their country. If they paid a price for their State, it is not for us to refuse to pay a price in hard currency, but to try to support these men, and give them habitation in this country.
I have one or two minor criticisms of of the Bill, which I will not put forward, because I support the Government completely in their attempt to place the Poles in Britain in civilian life. I am completely against any attempt to militarise them, to put them into a uniform as a temporary measure while they are being

placed in industry. I am also against putting any alien force into our British Forces, because I think that that would be antagonistic to the views of most of our people. But it is niggardly and pettifogging for people who claim to be internationalists—but who are more nationalistic than any of the "jingos" of the old days—to believe that, in this matter only the Fatherland is right; that everything it does can be right, and that everything any other section of the community does is wrong. I loathe every form of military domination. I hate all dictatorships, whether of Hitler, of Sikorski, of Stalin, or of Franco. Every one of them I abhor. But do not let us have an outpouring of the antagonism that springs from the Government of Warsaw. If Warsaw wants these men—and I would like to see them go back to their own country—let them make conditions tolerable in Poland. Let them give these men freedom of thought, and see that there is fair play for all. Let them create a Poland where a man is free to express his will, not, as it is today, a country where darkness prevails, where every person who opposes the Communist régime is condemned as a Fascist. If the Warsaw Government, holding the key to a solution of this problem, extends the hand of fellowship, and creates the foundation of a real freedom for the Poles, we can be freed from our obligations, because these men will be taken up by their own Government and country. There is decency in this Bill, broad, generous treatment in it, and I hope it will have the general support of most of the Members of this House.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Wyatt: While welcoming the generous provisions in this Bill, and the intention of the Government to do something, at last, about the Polish Forces in this country, I must say that I have grave doubts whether it will deal satisfactorily with the present position. In the first place, the whole question of the legality of Polish Forces at present here has not been settled. Yesterday, in reply to a Question, asking what statutory authority entitled the Polish Forces to try and detain members of those Forces, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War said that the authority was the Allied Forces Act, 1940. That is not the case. That Act was applied to the Polish Forces by


an agreement with the Polish Government in London, on 6th August, 1940. By that agreement, it was arranged that Statutory Order No. 1818 of the Allied Forces Act, 1940, should be introduced. That covered foreign armies, including members of the French and Belgian Armies. It applied to Polish Forces in Britain. under British control by virtue of the Visiting Forces Act, 1933, which in terms applies only to the Armies of Allied Powers. As from 6th July, 1945, Statutory Order 1818 of the Allied Forces Act, 1940, ceased to apply to the Polish Forces in England, because recognition had been withdrawn from the Polish Government in England. Therefore, the Polish Forces in England were no longer the Forces of an Allied Power, as the Polish Government in Warsaw, to whom the agreement had been transferred on that date, declared that they did not recognise them as being a part of the Polish Army.
In view of that, the Polish Forces in England have been an illegal army for the past 18 months. This view that they are illegal was upheld yesterday in the High Court when a Pole named Zytomirski, who had obtained a writ of habeas corpus against the authorities of a military hospital at Iscoyd Park, was brought before the High Court, and received costs in his action against the authorities of that military hospital. He claimed that he had been wrongfully arrested by members of the Polish Forces for refusing to join the Polish Resettlement Corps. The defence, through the Attorney-General, pleaded that he had only been detained because he was suspected of being a lunatic, and that he had been released, but the Lord Chief Justice held that the Polish Forces had no right to detain even lunatics. Consequently that ruling of the High Court, makes it quite clear that the Polish Forces in this country have been an illegal private army, probably the largest illegal private army ever known in this country since July, 1945.
The Bill regularises the position of those who join the Resettlement Corps, but does not regularise the position of those who do not join it. There are some 15,000 Poles, according to what we have been told by the Home Secretary, who have refused to join the Resettlement Corps or to go back to Poland. There is no mention made of that in the Bill. Consequently, there is

no disciplinary code by which they can be controlled. I presume that the Government will take some action in this matter, but it is not included in the Bill, and I hope that they may find it as well to put an Amendment in the Bill at a later stage. During the interim period until this Bill becomes law, the whole position of the Polish Forces in England is one of illegality, and one which gives them no statutory authority to maintain their disciplinary code, which can always be broken down by any member of them who wishes to bring an application for a writ of habeas corpus before the High Court.
I think that we should consider the background of the Poles who are in England at the moment. It is clear, as pointed out by the Home Secretary, that the first duty of all Poles is to return to their country, whether they like what is going on in their own country or not. It must always be the duty of anyone to be in his own country, and if he does not like what is going on there, to try to put it right. The British Government, however, have been allowing the most extensive propaganda to be put out by General Anders and his friends to prevent Poles going back to Poland, despite the fact that the Financial Secretary to the War Office on 4th November in this House said:
It is made quite clear to Poles who join the Resettlement Corps as Officers and other tanks that they are subject to British Military law and are, therefore, debarred from political activity while serving in the Corps."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November, 1946: Vol. 428. c 188]
That is quite untrue. The Poles in England have been running one daily paper and two weekly papers, carrying on ceaseless propaganda against Russia and urging Poles not to return to Poland, and no check of any kind has been put on this propaganda. Do the Government propose to say in future that within the Polish Resettlement Corps there will he no such propaganda in any newspaper that may be provided for the Poles, particularly in view of the statement of the Financial Secretary to the War Office?
On this subject of propaganda against returning to Poland, it is interesting to see in an article published in the "New York Herald Tribune" on 7th February, an interview with a number of Polish officers who have returned to Poland. One officer, who was previously a wing-


commander of a Mosquito squadron in the R.A.F. for six years, said that the propaganda printed in the Polish newspapers in London was enough to frighten anyone, and he also said that he only went back to Poland because his mother and mother-in-law remained there. Since he had been back, he had been given an equivalent position to that which he held in England in Warsaw, and the same was true of a number of officers who had returned at the invitation of the Polish Government. That interview was given to an American journalist, and published in a paper which is not particularly Communistic or biased in favour of the Polish Government.
The Polish Government, to do it justice, has been making repeated efforts to get these men to return to Poland, and has offered amnesties to them, even though they may have taken part in political activities against the Polish Government. They have honoured their word when these soldiers have returned. But we have been allowing ceaseless propaganda to be put out in this country amongst the Poles to prevent them returning, even though it only adds to our own expenditure. Everyone in the House agrees, except perhaps the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), that there are Poles who refuse to return, and that something must be done for them. We can do with them in British industry—that is quite clear with the present shortage of manpower; but we are not getting our money's worth. The right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), this afternoon, pointed out that they are costing us about by million a year.
It is implicit in the Bill that that expenditure will go on for about another five years. [Interruption.] It may go on for another five years, and it will certainly go on for another two or three years. At any rate, in my view, that expenditure has already gone on far too long. If we had taken more energetic steps at first, the expenditure could have been very greatly cut. If we are to put them into industry, there seems to be no need to put them into the military formations envisaged in the Bill Surely, they need not be grouped together into the XI5th Regiment or the Z24th Brigade. They could be grouped according to their trades, industries and professions, which would appear to be the rational way in which to group a number of men whom

you propose to train for civilian life. In that way they could be maintained in their camps and not grouped as military units. That part of the Bill must give rise to the suspicion that a great deal of spade work has been put in by General Anders and his friends to maintain, as long as possible, the military set-up which was in existence during the war, and has been in existence since the war. It is not designed to help these Poles to get into the way of British life or to get into industry more quickly, but it is designed to help General Anders and his friends to maintain their control over them, because they are grouped together in their old units.
I find Clause 8 extremely disturbing. This is the Clause which allows the Secretary of State for War to absorb whole units of these men into the British Army as a whole—whole groups of them as units. Why? What is the idea of this? Surely the alternative to be put to the men should be that they either join British industry as individuals or join the British Army as individuals. They have ceased to be an army of an Allied Power: they have ceased to be anybody's army, and they must realise the position now is that they are either individuals who are in British industry—naturally one does not want to stop them having friends—or they are individuals in the British Army and are not still marching about the place, as the 24th Brigade or the 15th Regiment.
Clause 8 virtually makes it possible for the Secretary of State for War to create a Foreign Legion for the first time in British history. As the Home Secretary pointed out tonight, we have often fought with foreigners but we have never absorbed them as units into the British Army. I think that is a most objectionable Clause, and it really obscures the whole intention of the Polish Resettlement Corps. Is it intended to put these men into the Polish Resettlement Corps, and if they cannot get jobs in industry after training is it intended that they will then be absorbed in blocks into the British Army, or what? If that is not so, then Clause 8 obviously is wrong and quite unnecessary. I suggest that a far more likely reason for Clause 8 is that it is hoped by these ex-Polish officers that they will be able to slip into the British Army along with large elements of the Polish Resettlement Corps without themselves joining the Polish Resettlement Corps, and that they will be


able to maintain their previous rank. I think it is quite obvious from their previous propaganda that they hope to keep this Army in being as a spearhead to use against the Polish Government.
Further, the British Government have made a very misleading statement to the people who have joined the Resettlement Corps. They have told them that even when they join the Resettlement Corps if they wish to return at any time subsequently they shall be free to do so. That is quite untrue, because the Polish Government have told the British Government that under an Act of 1920 the moment a Pole joins the Resettlement Corps he is regarded as having joined the Army of a foreign power, and, therefore, he loses Polish nationality. So, once a Pole joins this Resettlement Corps he has made his decision completely and finally for he has lost his Polish nationality. The British Government have not made that clear to the Poles who join or are proposing to join the Polish Resettlement Corps.
Surely the whole tenor of the Bill is the wrong way to set about it. There, is sufficient military awareness already amongst the Poles without perpetuating the military idea. Those Poles who opt for staying in this country have to have a certain amount of training in order that they may get used to the British way of life. But they ought to be put in the control of the Ministry of Labour, and taken away entirely from the War Office. That is the democratic way. How can they learn to be democratic under the auspices and ægis of the War Office and when subject to British military law? That is not how anyone learns to live the life conducted in this country. They will only learn it if they are put into groups according to their trades and professions, and such a scheme must be under the control of a civilian Department, when the only discipline for these Poles which will be required, if they are not formed into military formations, is the sort of discipline envisaged in Clause 3, by which the Assistance Board may prosecute and obtain a penalty of either three months' imprisonment or a £15 fine from any Pole who breaks the regulations of the camp in which he is.
I feel that there is no need for the cumbrous machinery of the relationship with the War Office—a most peculiar and autocratic arrangement, which may result

in the forming of a British Foreign Legion. Even this House of Commons will not be required to be consulted again, because if the Secretary of State for War wants to form a Foreign Legion of the British Army he can do it with a stroke of the pen. The need for these men in industry is so great that we are making arrangements that are far too elaborate and suggest more the perpetuation of a military corps. We are going along the road in a leisurely fashion. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that 3,200 Poles out of the 150,000 for whom employment has been found in industry are far too few. If we are going to have to train a man for at least two years, particularly in this backward sort of way, we are going to waste more and more time and more and more money when we need these people in industry, particularly in the coal mines, at this very moment.
Another objection to the treatment of the Polish Resettlement Corps is that there is a tendency to give it preferential treatment over the British equivalent. The Polish ex-Serviceman is going to have a much more detailed and adequate training than the British ex-Serviceman, and while I agree that we have an obligation to the Poles we have not as great an obligation as that. It was only yesterday that it was pointed out at Question Time that the rations given to the Polish Resettlement Corps were considerably in excess of the rations given to the British civilian. If a Pole wishes to stay here in this country he must be prepared to chance his arm like any other British civilian, and in particular, he must be made not to think that he is part of a private Army banded together for some political purpose not yet totally revealed. He must be a Pole in Poland or an Englishman in England. I think the Government have got into a muddle over the arrangements made, and I do not think that this Bill is going to take them all the way out of the muddle. I feel they should really be prepared to introduce quite a number of Amendments in the Committee stage, and particularly they should regularise this most unconstitutional position of a disciplinary code being in existence which has no relation to the laws of this country.

8.8. p.m.

Mr. Hollis: It is the most extraordinary of all principles that it is,


under all circumstances, the duty of a man to return to the country in which he was born. It is an extraordinary principle for anyone to maintain, but it is doubly extraordinary in an international Socialist. We are not here tonight to discuss or to take sides in the matter of Polish politics, but let us briefly consider the situation from which this problem has arisen, because it is very much obscured in some of the speches of hon. Members opposite.
The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) asked why we were taking these special measures towards Poles and not doing similar things for displaced persons generally. I hope we shall always he generous to refugees, but we are taking these special steps on behalf of the Poles because we have special obligations to them. This country took upon itself special obligations to all Poles and all Poland at the beginning of this war. Certain events have taken place since as a result of which, there is a division of opinion between the Poles. There are some who are unfavourable to the present Government, and there are others who favour it and they have gone back to live under it. Other Members opposite today have talked about it being the patriotic duty of all Poles to return to Poland, but we must remember that by the confession of the very Government of this country which those hon. Members support, the elections in Poland recently were fraudulent elections, and that that Government in power in Warsaw is at this moment acting in violation of the very conditions by which it was given provisional recognition by the Great Powers.

Mr. Wyatt: The hon. Gentleman said that he was not going to take sides in Poland.

Mr. Hollis: I am not taking sides; I am simply stating that that is the point of view of the British Government.

Mr. Gallocher: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us where there is evidence that elections were, fraudulent or where such evidence originates?

Mr. Hollis: If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, he had 40 minutes of the time of the House and I have only a short while. I am not talking about the merits of the position but saying that that is the point of view of the British Government. There is no question about that,

and it is pertinent that we should hold it in mind. It follows that we have very strong obligations to those Poles in this country who do not sec their way to go back to Poland. I was very puzzled by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mile End and anxious to follow his argument, but I could not see why it was that he moved the rejection of this Bill. His reasons seemed wholly inadequate, first, because of the point with which I have already dealt, and then because he was greatly concerned with his contention that certain of the Poles had, he alleged, not really rendered any service to this country, and were in the Polish Resettlement Forces under false pretences. Even if that is so the House has been told by the Minister of Labour that these men are at present being screened, and, therefore, those who are not entitled will not receive benefit under this Bill.
The hon. Member for Mile End was also anxious to take this opportunity to deliver certain observations about his dissatisfaction with the Polish Resettlement Forces generally. That he should take the opportunity to make these observations is intelligible, but I cannot see that they constitute a reason why he should reject this Bill. He claimed, rightly or wrongly, that the Resettlement Forces were under reactionary leadership, but this is not a Bill which aims at keeping those forces permanently in being. On the contrary, it is a method—I will not argue whether it is satisfactory or not—for carrying the Poles through the intermediate stage and bringing them in some cases into the military, but generally into the civil life of the country, as far as possible with the mentality of ordinary Englishmen. From the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) one might have thought that Clause 8 of this Bill had been drafted by General Anders himself. The hon. Member spoke of all the things that could be done under Clause 8 as if some subtle and wicked plan had been drawn up by General Anders, but the simple fact is that here is a Bill not to enable the recruitment of a mercenary force of Poles to disturb British Socialism or Russian Socialism or what you will; but one which will be administered by the Secretary of State for War. Can any one seriously imagine that the Secretary of State is pro-


posing to use his powers for that purpose?
One could defend this Bill on the ground that we badly need the labour and that would be a very valid line of defence. One could also defend it on the ground that we have strong obligations to the Poles, and that too would be a very valid line of defence. But I prefer to defend it on what seems to me to be the even stronger line that it is one of the noblest and greatest of the traditions of this country to provide a refuge for people who are driven out from less happy lands, for whatever cause. It has been our tradition to give refuge to men because they are men—not because they are Catholics or Protestants, Jews or Gentiles, Conservatives or Socialists. The tradition of this country is that we gave harbour to conservative refugees from French revolutionary Governments and to revolutionary refugees from Italian conservative Governments. That is a great English tradition and one of the greatest in the world, and it is for that more than for any other reason that I most heartily support this Bill. Hon. Members have asked why we are helping only the Poles.

Mr. Gallacher: They are not refugees.

Mr. Hollis: What does the hon. Gentleman consider they are?

Mr. Gallacher: They are men who came over in particular circumstances. They have never been in the new Poland and they are not refugees from the new Poland and the new Polish Government.

Mr. Hollis: That is a very odd use of the word "refugees" by the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think we need bother to argue with him about it. A refugee is a man who is in refuge from the existing regime in his country. My whole argument was that I did not base my case on whether people's politics were right or wrong, but on the fact that these Poles were men and women. Of all the evils of this excess of ideologies which has come upon the world today there is none more disgusting than that which causes people no longer to look at men and women as such but simply to ask if they are on their side of the fence or the other; if they are on their side they will do everything for them, but if they are on

the other side they will treat them as no decent man would treat animals. Because this Bill is a protest against that spirit which the hon. Member for West Fife exemplified this afternoon in the most disgraceful speech I have ever listened to in this House, I support it wholeheartedly.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I feel that the last few remarks of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) did not constitute a very helpful contribution to British-Polish relations. I rise mainly for the purpose of making a few observations on the contents of the Bill, but in view of the very wide field which has been covered by hon. Members who have spoken latterly, there are two points which I think should be made from these Benches. I think that many of my hon. Friends will agree with a number of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I do not think, however, that any of them will agree with the conclusions of the hon. Gentlemen, or that they will consider them to have given cogent reasons for the rejection of the Bill. In so far, however, as they expressed the point of view that we do not exhaust our duty to Poland by what we are doing in this Bill I think there will be general agreement.
We have a duty not only to the Poles for whom provision is made in this Bill because they happen to be in this country at the present time; we also have a duty to all Poles in general by virtue of their status as Allies with us in the recent war. The reasons put forward by the hon. Members for the rejection of the Bill was that it was an affront to the Polish Government. It is nothing of the kind. It was stated that it was our duty to consult the Polish Government before the Bill was prepared, but there was no such duty. By this Bill we are redeeming a pledge and performing a duty which does not require any consultation with the Polish Government. I am sure that the Minister of State, who has listened to most of this Debate, will agree that over and above all that we are doing in this Measure in making provision for these 200,000 Poles, we also have a duty to ensure friendly relations with the Polish nation as far as we can, irrespective of whatever Government they happen to have. However much hon


Members on either side of the House may criticise the recent elections which stook place in Poland, the fact remains that there is now no longer a provisional Polish Government but a de facto one.

Professor Savory: Surely, it is purely provisional until it is recognised by the Allies?

Mr. Fletcher: I do not want to be led away into an argument on the distinction between de jure and de facto recognition. We must realise that there is a de facto Polish Government, and I am sure the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State will agree with me that, however much we may criticise the elections that were held, it is now our duty, as far as we can, to ensure friendly and cordial relations with the Polish people. I hope that nothing that has been said during this Debate, at any rate on these Benches, by those who are supporting the Bill, will be interpreted in Poland as being in any way derogatory to the Polish Government or as suggesting that there is any lack of goodwill on the part of this House with the Polish people in Poland. I hope we shall not fall into the error which the Tory Party made in 1918 and 1919 of thinking that the Soviet régime in Russia was merely a temporary affair. We have to accept the Polish régime as we find it.
I want now to turn to matters of more immediate importance in connection with this Debate, namely, the provisions of the Bill, and the spirit which I hope will animate those Government Departments that are charged with the responsibility of administering the Measure. I listened to the Home Secretary's speech in moving the Second Reading, but I am bound to say that there is still a great deal that is obscure about the way in which we are making provision for the Polish soldiers, their dependants and others towards whom we are now attempting to fulfil our duty. I want, first, to ask the Minister who is to reply to clear up certain points concerning the administration of these matters. I understand that a large number of these Poles, no doubt as a result of the inducements and persuasion which it is our policy to make, have decided to return to Poland and have been accepted. They have been screened, and they are awaiting shipment by the British Government to Poland. I do not know the number of these people, but I understand that it runs into several thousands.
I want, first, to ask why they are not being sent back as rapidly as possible, and secondly, in what conditions they are living at the present time. With regard to the second question, some hon. Members may have seen a report that appeared in the Press on Monday dealing with conditions at one of these camps where, I understand, these people have been awaiting repatriation to Poland for the last four or five months. In that camp at Fairfield, near Prestwick, in Scotland, there is—or there was until yesterday—a hunger strike in progress. There are in that camp 380 Polish Servicemen and their wives, some of whom are British, who have been awaiting repatriation to Poland, and they have been on hunger strike for the last five or six days People do not start a hunger strike lightly, particularly in the arctic conditions we are at. present experiencing. They have been driven to this expedient. Some of the women are pregnant, and at the present time there are 70 of them desperately ill, but they are maintaining their hunger strike out of a sense of loyalty to the others. This hunger strike is a protest against the conditions of life in that camp. It may be the worst camp of the series, but if there are any other camps where such conditions exist, it is a matter which requires the immediate attention of whatever Government Department is responsible. It may well be the War Office, although it may be it ought not to be the War Office. If it is the War Office, I want to ask the following questions, because I do not think the Home Secretary dealt with the matter very fully in his speech.
Who is to be responsible for the administration of the camps provided for under this Bill during the period, which I am afraid will be quite a long interval—when these people in the Polish Resettlement Corps are being assimilated into civilian life? Am I right in thinking that the 2,000 or so members of that Corps for whom civilian jobs have been found at the present time are still, for the most part, living in these military camps under the aegis of the War Office? Is it intended that, as more and more people are found civilian jobs, they will continue to live in these camps under the direction of the War Office? What is the intention of the Government concerning the transfer of those camps from the War


Office either to the Ministry of Labour or to the Home Office, or to some organisation which will, no doubt, provide more humane treatment than that given at the Fairfield camp, where this hunger strike is taking place?
I want next to ask the Minister who is to reply to clear up certain misunderstandings that exist in the minds of a great many of the Polish people to whom this Bill applies. Is it or is it not required of a Polish ex-serviceman that he should join the Polish Resettlement Corps unless he wants either to go back to Poland or to emigrate? There are certain Poles who, having left the Polish Forces, have of their own account found civilian employment where they are quite happy and are doing honest, useful work. Those people ought to be allowed to remain in the work they are doing without any interference.

Mr. Ness Edwards: indicated assent.

Mr. Fletcher: I understand the Minister to indicate that that is the position. In order that there may be no possible cause for misunderstanding, may I quote a letter from one of my constituents and which I have no doubt is typical of what exists in the minds of many other people. This British lady, who is married to a Pole who was formerly a sailor, writes:
My husband is Polish, and was in the Polish Navy. and three months ago the Polish Navy gave him extended leave with a view to finding civilian employment and making good lie has a very good post on a railway, and we are at present very happy. On Saturday he received a letter containing a railway warrant to go to Plymouth to sign for the Polish Resettlement Corps, which means that if he signs he will be sent away from home and possibly lose a very good job, which we found difficulty in securing. He definitely does not want to join the Corps or have anything to do with the Polish Government.
I hope that, for the benefit of any others who are in that category, some announcement will he made that will ensure that neither for reasons of administrative tidiness or anything else will any pressure be brought to bear on Poles who are now in civilian employment to join the Polish Resettlement Corps. Further, may I ask the Minister what is the attitude of the Government with regard to those members of the Polish Resettlement Corps who were formerly officers? Am I correct in saying that they are still being paid at a rate

appropriate to officers, and therefore at rates which must presumably be better than the wages they can earn in civilian employment? If employment is found for them in civilian life, are we not faced with the possibility that several of them will prefer to remain drawing the officer wage rather than take up civilian employment?
Finally, I ask for enlightenment with regard to the provisions of Clause 6, which deals with the establishment of the Polish University College. I thought that the Home Secretary was just a little ambiguous in the answer he gave on that question. One must assume, from our knowledge of the extent to which of these Poles have now learnt English, that the majority of those who will go into this college will speak and understand English. Is the University College to be run by an English administration or a Polish administration, and are the staff to be English or Polish? Further, what is the intended duration of the college? I should hope it will be reasonably short and that eventually all Poles will be absorbed and assimilated into the ordinary university and educational system of the country. It is undesirable that it should even be thought that the Polish University College may become the nucleus of an enclave of Polish-taught anti-Warsaw propaganda in this country. I am not suggesting that it would be, but it should not even have the appearance of being so.
For these reasons, and for other reasons of detail that I will not now go into, I hope the Government will attend to the administrative requirements of this problem, and that the House, in the exercise of its customary vigilance, will ensure that they do so, but I think that we all agree that the Bill deserves the support of this House on this Second Reading stage.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Richard Law: Enough has been said from this side of the House by my right hon. and hon. Friends behind me to show that we welcome the Bill and support it. We know that we incurred a debt in 1939. That debt was acknowledged by the Coalition Government, and it has been confirmed by this Government. The Bill is an effort, a sincere effort, to discharge that debt. It is easier for the House to discharge that debt when, as the Home


Secretary stated earlier this evening, the Poles, in their medical and educational services and so on, have done so very much to help themselves. What we do by the Bill is not just to hand out charity to those who are in danger; we help people who have made every effort to help themselves.
We are conscious of this debt. And as was stated by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) and the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Tittering-ton), it is much to our own advantage that the debt should be discharged. We stand to gain very greatly if we are able to absorb the Poles into our British way of life and, in particular, into our British industry. That may perhaps give the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Hynd) an answer to one question he asked, which was why we on these Benches support a Measure at this very critical time which imposes a further charge on public funds. We support it because we consider ourselves to be bound in honour to support it, and because we believe that the provisions of this Bill will be in the long-term interests of this country.
The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Astor) said that there were some omissions from the Bill. I agree that the Bill does not cover the whole of the ground of Polish resettlement, and I will refer to that later. My hon. Friend accused my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) of being complacent in his reception of the Bill. I do not think my right hon. Friend was in any way complacent about it, but we have to recognise that in this Bill we are doing something, strained as we are in our economic situation, that no other country, even those far better situated than we are, has attempted to do.
What is the precise meaning of the final paragraph of Clause 1 (1)? It reads:
Provided that payments under a scheme made under this section shall be limited touch as fall due for payment before the expiration of five years from the passing of this Act…
I am not clear—it may be my own stupidity—whether that means that no fresh schemes can be entertained after five years or whether it means that any pensions which are paid under this Act will come to an end in five years. If it means that, it seems monstrously unfair, for if one of the individuals covered by this Clause has, say, a 100 per cent. Dis-

ability which will be with him throughout his life, I cannot see the reason for cutting his pension at the end of five years. I should like some enlightenment on that. I would also like to ask the Government about this question of the Resettlement Corps and the attitude of those Poles—the Home Secretary said something more than 15,000—who have been approached but who are still undecided. I believe it to be the case that a number of Poles would like to join the Resettlement Corps but are quite literally afraid to do so because they fear reprisals on their relatives in Warsaw— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I think it is the case that the Warsaw Government has made it quite clear that it does not like the idea of the Resettlement Corps and it has threatened those who join it with loss of their nationality, though I do not think that has yet been carried out—

Mr. Lever: Is that not an automatic effect?

Mr. Law: That means that Poles here who have wives, children or near relations in Warsaw may be very nervous about joining the Resettlement Corps. I have heard that those who are given the opportunity to join the Resettlement Corps but do not join it and do not go back to Poland, are to be deported to displaced persons' camps in Germany or elsewhere in Europe. I hope that is not the case. It may be that there are those who will not join the Resettlement Corps simply because they do not like the idea of working. That is a different matter, but with regard to people who will not join the Resettlement Corps because they are afraid to do so for the reasons I have given, I hope very much that this threat, if it exists, will be withdrawn.

Mr. H. Hynd: What would the right hon. Gentleman suggest should be done about those people who refuse to join the Resettlement Corps?

Mr. Law: I am not at the moment making any suggestion as to what should be done, because I do not happen to be responsible; I am only drawing the attention of the Government to what I believe is a real difficulty and I hope that, however they meet this difficulty, they will not meet it by injustice.
With regard to the Amendment, it is not my business to defend the Government from their allies and comrades, but


I must say that the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) seemed this afternoon to be in a little less than his usual fighting form. He produced some extremely curious arguments for opposing this Bill. As far as I could make out, his first argument was that he opposed the Bill because the Government had not brought it in soon enough. That seemed to me to be very odd. His other main argument was that he was opposing the Bill because the Resettlement Corps was an insult to the Warsaw Government and that this Bill, by magnifying the Resettle-Corps, magnified the insult. As far as I can understand the Bill, so far from magnifying the Resettlement Corps, the purpose of the Bill is to give members of the Corps an exit from it and an entry into British life. Therefore, I found it very difficult to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Mile End.
Then there was the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). We often see in this House scenes that touch our emotions deeply, and I doubt whether I have ever seen a more touching one than we witnessed this afternoon, when the Leader of the Communist Party solemnly congratulated the deputy Leader of the Communist Party on being singled out, at so youthful an age, and with so little Parliamentary experience, for the honour of moving the Amendment on behalf of his party. I thought that was a very moving scene indeed. I find myself very much in agreement with Mr. Speaker—I could not find much that was relevant to the Bill in the speech of the hon. Member for West Fife. In so far as it was relevant, I rather gathered that he, like his deputy, was worried about the Resettlement Corps, and on that point it seems to me that the hon. Member for West Fife, the leader of the Communist Party, was leaving the expression of his anxieties rather late. He had a much earlier opportunity of expressing them on 22nd May last year when the Foreign Secretary announced the formation of the Resettlement Corps. However, he did not express them. It was not that the hon. Member was silent. He said on that occasion:
I want to ask whether, when these men are being placed in any area,
that is, the Poles in the Resettlement Corps—

there will be consultation with the local authority in order to ensure that the. best possible conditions are provided for them?" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1946; Vol. 423, C. 305.]
His anxiety on 22nd May to see that the best possible conditions were provided for the Poles in order, suppose, that they might be encouraged to join the Resettlement Corps, hardly squares with his attitude today. I suppose that discrepancy only means that he has received fresh instructions since then. I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more about the speech of the hon. Member for West Fife, because my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) seems to have torpedoed it when he asked whether the hon. Member for West Fife wanted to compel Poles to go back to Poland. When the hon. Member for West Fife was asked that question, he was quite unable to answer it. As I say, it torpedoed the whole of the hon. Member's argument such as it was, and so much of it as was relevant to the Bill.
I would like to refer again to the well-informed and extremely thoughtful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey. He said that this Bill was only a palliative. I think the House will probably agree that my hon. Friend was quite right, because this Bill, without other actions on the part of His Majesty's Government, does not touch the core of the problem of Polish resettlement at all, unless it is followed by other action on the part of the Government, action far more vigorous than any they have yet taken. All the Bill means, unless other action is taken, is that we shall be creating in this island an enormous, well-run and humane displaced persons camp. The real problem of Polish resettlement is, as the Home Secretary said, how these men and women are to be absorbed into the British way of life, and, in particular, into British industry. We ought to consider what has been the record of the Government in this matter. I do not think it has been very good.
I am sorry to introduce this controversial note, because I understand that now it is the attitude of hon. Members opposite in these difficult times that if anyone on this side criticises the policy of the Government, and the administrative record of the Government, they are to be considered unpatriotic. I do not think


we are being unpatriotic. It is our duty to call attention to weaknesses in Government administration. It is sometimes said that it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose. I will not go into that tonight, but I conceive that at this juncture it is most certainly the duty of the Opposition to expose the maladministration and incompetence of His Majesty's Government. Until that is exposed, and until the people of this country understand it, there is no way of getting rid of this Government. And until we do get rid of this Government, there is no way of the country getting out of its present very terrible difficulties.
What is the record of the Government in this matter? The Home Secretary told us this afternoon that there were in this country 127,000 Poles. The Minister of Labour told us last night, and seemed to take great credit for it, that of these 127,000 Poles, 2,300 had been absorbed into industry. The Minister of Labour told us that arrangements had now been made for the training of Poles to enter the coalmines and that the entry—I presume after the training has been completed—was to be at the rate of 300 a week. Why did the Minister tell us that last night? Why did he not tell us that six months ago? On 22nd May, which is the critical date in regard to this Bill, because that was the day on which the Foreign Secretary made his statement about the Resettlement Corps, he was asked by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) whether training facilities would be provided for industries such as coal mining and agriculture. The Foreign Secretary replied, without a moment's hesitation, "Certainly" He did not say that they were to be provided nearly a year later. He implied that they were to be provided at once.
I would like to give the House an example of what I consider to be the extraordinary dilatoriness of the Government's attack upon this problem of absorbing the Poles into industry in general, and into the coalmines in particular; or rather, I would like to ask the Minister who is to reply a few questions about it. I ask him if it is the fact, as I have been informed, that early last year, the Ministry of Labour, or some Department of the Government, was told by the Polish Resettlement Corps Headquarters that there were 900 experienced Polish miners

in this country, able to go at once into the coalmines? I would ask him further whether it is the fact that nothing was done about this for many weeks, and that it was then decided to interview these potential miners? By that time the figure of 900, I am told, had dwindled to 500. The balance had either been repatriated or had emigrated to work in the French coalmines, or in some way or other had drifted into other occupations here. These men were interviewed. I understand that 200 of them were accepted, and that nothing more was done. Is that so? I understand that of these 500 men who were interviewed, only 81 are now available, and that only one single solitary man has actually gone into the coalmining industry. I, therefore, ask the Minister if it is the case that a few months ago the Government were told that there were 900 experienced miners available immediately, and that today only one of those 900 has actually gone down the mine.
Then, there is the question of training. We all realise that the training of these men is a real difficulty. But is it not the case that there are, in this country already, a number of Polish training centres which could easily be used for vocational training, and which the Ministry of Labour has not yet even so much as inspected, with a view to taking them over? We all know that this is a most unsatisfactory story. I think the Government will admit that themselves, but they put up a defence, of which they think a great deal, but of which I must confess I do not think a great deal. They say, first, there is the housing difficulty, and there is the language difficulty. I think my right hon. Friend disposed of that this afternoon.

Mrs. Manning: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean that the problem of finding homes for the Poles is easy of solution?

Mr. Law: I think that my right hon. Friend showed that the difficulty was much exaggerated, and that if the Government had really made an effort to accommodate Polish workers in hostels, etc., some solution could have been found.
But the real defence of the Government, which has been repeated time and time again by Ministers, is that the introduction of Poles or other foreigners into industry would cause so much industrial


unrest that the net result would be that production would fall rather than rise. I do not consider that to be any defence at all from this Government. It is the business of the Government to lead, not to be led. If it is the case, as the Minister seemed to claim, that trade union leadership is narrow, selfish and short-sighted then it is the duty of the Government to enlighten and influence that leadership. I should have thought that no Government could have been better situated to do that than this Government. I do not think I have ever expected, speaking for myself, any high degree of competence from the Government. I have not expected it, and I have not found it. But I thought at one time that, at least, the Government, with their special confidential relationships with the trade unions would be able so to influence them that they would not persist, at this time, in the restrictive practices which have, all too sadly, marked the recent history of trade unionism.
I suggest to the Government that they must show in this matter greater vigour than they have shown up to now. I think it is fair to say that the trade unions if they have been convinced—and I hope they have—have not been convinced by the logic of the Government but by the much harsher logic of facts. The Government knew the facts behind the present crisis. They must have known them. But the people of this country only learned those facts last Friday afternoon. I think we may fairly say that, in this matter of building up the manpower of industry by the employment of Polish or other foreign labour, the Government have not given a lead to the country. They have not convinced the country. They have just waited until the country has been convinced by the facts. As I said before, we welcome this Bill. By itself, it will not touch the core of the problem. Whether this Bill is really effective and really fulfils the purpose that we have in mind. depends almost entirely upon the energy which the Government show in this matter of the absorption of Poles into industry.

8.58 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): I can only say in reply to the last remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the

Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law), that if we do not show any more energy in dealing with this problem than some of his colleagues opposite showed to the poor South Wales miners in the twenties, we shall deserve all that comes to us. This is not an issue upon which we ought to have any political knockabout. This is a great human issue which ought to be dealt with in this House on the highest level. In my view, it is not a political problem. It is a human problem which ought to be dealt with from a humanitarian and not from an ideological point of view. I think it is well to remind the House of the debt we owe to these men who come within the scope of the Bill.
In 1940 and 1941, the highest praise was paid from all parts of the House to the gallant Polish fighter pilots, who helped to defend even this House of Commons from the attacks from the German planes. I think the House should be reminded of the great contribution made in the North African desert at El Alamein and Tobruk and then of the great and gallant stand at Monte Cassino, in Italy. The foundations of victory were being laid at that time by these men for whom we want to make provision in this Bill. It is in the sense of redeeming our obligations to these men, and maintaining the honour and prestige of this nation and of this House in relation to the pledges given, that we ought to approach this problem.
The Bill has been gone over in considerable detail by some hon. Members, while other hon. Members seemed capable of talking without the Bill at all, so wide did the Debate appear to range. I shall try to cover, as briefly as I can, the points raised in the Debate and provide the necessary answers. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), in opening for the Opposition, referred in particular, as did the last right hon. Gentleman who spoke, to the dilatoriness of the Government in bringing forward this Bill. They know something of negotiations with people other than our own, and, although there have 'been complaints about the negotiations or consultations which took place with representatives of the Poles, there was no one else with whom we could have any consultations. Those were the people to whom the pledges had been given. The negotiations dragged on, but I want to


assure the House that the Government were most anxious to get the earliest possible settlement of this problem in this country, and to get that settlement without causing any offence in Poland itself. There was no desire to cause affront to the Provisional Government in Poland; neither was there any desire to do any injustice to members of the Polish Forces in this country. It is because of our concern, not only for doing the right thing but for appearing to do the right thing, that so much time has been taken in bringing this Measure before the House, and I hope this will be accepted, especially by the right hon. Gentleman for South Kensington, whose experience in this sphere is not a limited one.
The next point was the question of Polish liability to this Government for the outstanding debts that have accrued. It is true that a satisfactory financial adjustment has been made, and has been embodied in the provisional agreement. I regret that I am unable to say what the terms of that agreement are, because, as will be appreciated, I am here representing the Ministry of Labour, but have also had the job of answering for other Departments thrust upon my shoulders. Naturally, I am not acquainted with the work of other Departments, but I am told that, whilst the agreement has been arrived at, we are withholding ratification of the agreement pending the fulfilment of certain pledges made at Potsdam to representatives of this Government. Indeed, I was very surprised by the right hon. Gentleman who suggested that we might be cutting off our noses to spite our faces. Did he mean that we should sell our principles for the debts that are outstanding? I rather appreciated the point made by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Astor) that appeasement in these matters does not pay. I think the Government ought to he complimented on showing such great patience, at great cost to this country, in trying to get the redemption of these pledges before ratification of the agreement takes place.
I was also asked what is the cost of maintaining these Forces in this country in idleness. I should think that that is hardly a matter that comes within the scope of this Bill. I should think that it would come up on the Estimates, and that, as it comes within the War Office Vote, it might properly be raised on that Vote. On the point of idleness, I do not

accept the position that these men have been idle all this time. Anyone travelling up and down this country will know that Polish Forces, working in gangs, have been rendering a very great amount of assistance. I should have thought that the contribution which they have made to agriculture in Scotland, and the help which they are now giving on the railways in an endeavour to get traffic moving, would have received a higher measure of appreciation from both sides of the House than, apparently, has been the case.
I was also asked by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the pensions, and why they were limited to five years. The short point is that the pensions have been established. They have been established on very inadequate documentation, and there is some doubt as to whether or not, if British medical boards and British methods were applied, these pensions would be as large, or as small, as they are now. In order to review this position, and, in the hope that we can get a greater degree of co-operation from the Provisional Government in Poland as well, we decided on a five-year period. We are not without hope that, some day, the Polish Government may take over these liabilities and have these men back in Poland. We hope that such negotiations will proceed, but it was thought that, if a five-year period were laid down, at the end of that period we might be able to review the position. The Minister will have the right to extend the scheme without coming to this House.

Mr. Peake: Is the hon. Gentleman really telling the House that this limitation of five years on the payment of disability pensions to Polish soldiers injured in the war, was inserted to appease the Provisional Government in Warsaw?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I know that I am a Welshman, but I thought that I was using the English language correctly. I had no intention of conveying that impression to the right hon. Gentleman. What I said was that we did not want to tie ourselves for ever to this liability if there was a chance, through negotiations, of getting the Polish Government to accept the liability. I want to assure the House and the right hon. Gentleman that there is no intention, if circumstances remain as they are, of depriving these men of their pensions at the end of five


years. I hope that that assurance will satisfy the hon. Members in various parts of the House who raised that question. Then I was asked why it was that the Assistance Board re-enacted—

Mrs. Manning: Before my hon. Friend leaves the matter of pensions, would he answer the question raised by one or two hon. Members whether there is any discrimination against men going back to Poland and whether they can go anywhere else and still receive their pensions?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I will come back to that point presently. I am trying to deal with the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite with regard to the Assistance Board re-enacting the various conditions for qualifying for unemployment assistance. The short point is that the condition which we apply to British people is that they must be available for and able to work. In this case, it has been widened so as to take into account and to enable the Assistance Board to pay unemployment assistance to Poles who are too old to work, or who are sick and have not acquired National Health Insurance rights. It is for that purpose that this Clause has been inserted. With regard to unemployment benefit and health and medical practice, the short answer there is that anybody passing through the Resettlement Corps will have exactly the same rights as British soldiers on discharge from the Services. I hope that that will meet with the general approval of the House.
With regard to the Assistance Board being the responsible body for running the camps, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds was wrong when he said that the Ministry of Labour runs camps and hostels. What happens is that the Ministry of Labour uses the Hostels Corporation as an agency, and it is proposed that the Assistance Board will do the same thing. By this means, the Assistance Board will have the right to use the Y.M.C.A., the Y.W.C.A. in some cases, or the Hostels Corporation to run these hostels and camps when they are on a civilian basis. They will be the accounting body for these purposes.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is it intended to use as hostels or camps any of those camps which are being temporarily evacuated, by

the Royal Air Force in particular, prior to rebuilding?

Mr. Ness Edwards: It is the intention to try to use as many camps as are conveniently sited for housing the Poles. Our great difficulty is that most of the camps in this country are in areas where there is no potential employment. That is the great difficulty that we have in dealing with camp accommodation. They have usually been sited far away from aggregations of population and from industries where labour is required. Then there is a further difficulty. The standard of accommodation to be provided for the Poles—and I am sure the House will agree on this point—is to be better than that which was provided for prisoners of war, and this involves some reconditioning of those camps which are convenient for the purpose of housing the Poles.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) and, I think, other hon. Members raised a question in connection with the seven days' notice which was given to Poles who had refused to enlist in the Resettlement Corps or to volunteer to go back to Poland. I think the same point was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington. This is the position. Seven months ago, these men were asked to exercise their option. They said they would not enter the Resettlement Corps, neither would they emigrate nor return to Poland. That is an extremely serious position, and if the Government were to be blackmailed into allowing these men to remain in an armed force at military rates of pay and making no contribution to the country, we would be heading for a disaster. On the other hand, there is no desire on the part of the Government to use any unjust methods to compel these men to exercise their option immediately it is put to them. But in this particular case, the first request was made to the man about whom we had the information seven months ago. It has been repeated since on a number of occasions, and if he were to get away with it we would never get anybody into the Resettlement Corps.

Mr. Hollis: rose—

Mr. Ness Edwards: Please let me finish. It was felt that we must take some action in this matter. There are three alternatives—to emigrate, join the Resettlement Corps and take up civilian employment


in this country, or go back to Poland. If they decide to emigrate we will pay their fares and give them allowances. if they go back to Poland we will ship them there and give them certain allowances when they land there. If they join the Resettlement Corps and enter civilian employment, again they will get certain allowances. But if they say "We will do nothing," in order to remain a charge upon the economy of this country, then the Government must take some action in order to get a decision.

Mr. Hollis: I appreciate the candour of the hon. Gentleman in dealing with this point, but does not he appreciate that it is very difficult for these men to come to a decision until it is made clear to them what are the circumstances in which they will or will not be allowed to enter this country?

Mr. Lipson: Can my hon. Friend say how many men are affected by this order, that they must make up their minds in seven days?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I do not want to advertise this too much. I do not want encouragement to be given to other Poles to follow suit, and I am sure the House would not expect me to encourage them. There are some hundreds who are in this position, and this final warning has been given to 200 men. I am told that the least period which any of them has had to consider the matter is five months. I am sure it will be agreed on all sides of the House that the Government are being extremely lenient in this matter. We do not want our leniency to be regarded as weakness, and we do not want too many people here who obviously are not prepared to do anything to maintain themselves.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: We must press the hon. Member on this point, because it is an important one. There are 26,000 Poles who have not yet been interviewed about this order, which is couched in terms of the seven days' notice. Will those men be given only seven days in which to decide whether they are to be sent to almost certain death in Germany, or to come here and stay here in the Resettlement Corps, or to go home?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I should have thought, the example of what has been

done is an indication of what it is our intention to do. We have been very decent with the Poles in allowing them time to make up their minds. As far as I can see, there is no reason to think that we shall not continue to be decent. On the other hand, we do not want the decency of the Government in relation to this problem to be exploited. That is all I can say on the point. I can give the assurance that from the day a man says he is not going to make an election he is given seven days' notice. That will not mean he will be interviewed a number of times before he is given a final warning. I am sorry to have taken so much time dealing with these points, but they are matters which concern hon. Members very seriously.
I have been asked what is to happen to the disabled who are in receipt of pensions. They will be treated in exactly the same way as British soldiers. If they emigrate, they will take with them the same rates as disabled British soldiers. In that sense, I think that is completely satisfactory. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Mr. H. Hynd) made a point in what I thought was a rather peculiar way. He asked whether the Bill provided a pension for a man who was wounded in the German Army. The answer is: No. If my hon. Friend reads Clause 1 (1, b)he will see that it is not intended to give pensions to men who were wounded otherwise than under British command.

Mr. H. Hynd: It does not say so.

Mr. Ness Edwards: If my hon. Friend reads it carefully he will find that that is the position.

Mr. Hynd: Could I ask my hon. Friend to clarify that point? Clause 1(1 c)applies to the Polish resettlement forces. That includes men who served in the German Army. The Clause goes on to say that those people will get pensions, including pensions for the dependants of those who have been killed in consequence of service during the 1939 world war. It does not say on which side.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I think Clause 1 (1, b)is the overriding consideration. My hon. Friend can take it for granted that we are not going to give pensions to men who were wounded fighting against us. My hon. Friend the Mem-


ber for Central Hackney, I thought, looked with a considerable amount of suspicion upon this Bill. He seemed to regard it as a means whereby the Polish forces in this country would be concentrated under another guise. Surely, he cannot have read the Bill, because it provides for facilitating the dispersal of the Poles into the civilian life of this country; and there is no intention at all of the Poles in this country forming a sort of shadow army ready to pounce upon Russia or some other country in case of emergency. That is a complete misreading of the intention of the Government and of the purpose of the Bill He says it might he possible to have complete Polish Army units under Clause 8. I can assure him that is not the intention. Clause 8 provides that we shall organise the Polish resettlement forces as a unit of the British Army. That is all it does. Without Clause 8 we cannot get all these Poles togther in the Resettlement Corps. They will be under British military discipline while they are under resettlement. As soon as they can get into civilian life, they cease to have any connection at all with the Resettlement Corps or Army discipline. He made another point about the existence of Polish discipline, and its being applied to the Polish forces in this country. My information is that that terminated in July, 1945, and that since that date there has been no application at all of Polish military law in this country.

Mr. Wyatt: Yes, there has, but it has been illegal.

Mr. Ness Edwards: So far as the legal position is concerned, it is not legal at all. I must come now to the Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin). In the interests of sanctuary he has moved this Amendment, and wants the House to reject the Bill—as he very well put it—first, because it was coming late; secondly, because it might be an affront to the Polish Government; and thirdly, because the wrong people had been consulted.

Mr. Piratin: I am sure the Minister does not wish to misinterpret me. I never raised the question of the Bill coming late. The right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr Peake) did that With regard to the

take them out of their context, and that he will deal with them adequately. Surely, he feels he has a strong enough case to deal with them adequately.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, but one has not time. As I understand the Amendment, this Bill ought to be rejected, first, because it might cause an affront to the Polish Government—to the Provisional Government in Poland. Apparently, throughout the whole of his remarks, the hon. Member had the fear that this was a political organisation to be used for possibly ulterior purposes at some distant date. That was the impression I had from the speech he made in moving the Amendment. But I should have thought that he would have agreed to the necessity of this Bill, if only to deal with those Poles who are being refused permission to go to Poland by the Provisional Polish Government. What are we to do with those men? After all, the Provisional Polish Government are screening these men in London, and are refusing to allow some of these Poles to go back to Poland. Are not we to have this Bill to give those men all the things they ought to have—especially if the hon. Member believes that we must give sanctuary to those men?

Mr. Piratin: Surely, the Minister is now deliberately making a debating point of something I did not say. There are three paragraphs, (a) (b) and (c) of Subsection (I) of Clause 1, and (c) refers to the resettlement forces. What I said was, that the Government have already presented to the country, and to the Polish Government, a fait accompli in the form of the Resettlement Corps, which is now to be given certain privileges. It was the Resettlement Corps to which I was opposed, not individual Poles who might require sanctuary.

Mr. Ness Edwards: the Resettlement Corps will be necessary to organise and provide for those men who will he rejected by the Provisional Government in Poland

Mr. Piratin: Why would it be necessary?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Because these men cannot be left uncared for. If they are left uncared for they will still he part of a military body. and the hon. Gentleman does not believe in a State within a State, and, therefore, we must disperse this


potential State within a State by putting the men in the Resettlement Corps which will disperse them throughout the general life of this country. That, surely, is the argument.
Many arguments have been used as to undue pressure from both sides. I regret that those arguments are used in connection with this problem. There has been no undue pressure on the part of the Government to get men to stay in this country, nor to emigrate, but I should like to make the position clear. So far, I think, 25,000 men have elected to return to Poland. The rate at which they have gone was 4,000 in November last and 4,000 in December. The Government's machinery in connection with the Resettlement Corps and the Polish Forces generally is prepared to carry and pay for 10,000 men every month, but the rate of repatriation is determined by the rate at which the Provisional Government in Poland will accept them. That is the position. There is no desire at all to create the impression in the mind of the Provisional Government of Poland that we want to keep them here. We do not, and I think the facts indicate that we are attempting—

Mr. Gallaeher: On a point of Order. Is the Parliamentary Secretary in Order in referring to the properly-constituted de facto Government of Poland as a Provisional Government?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): That is not a point of Order.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I understand that, as the Treaty has not been ratified, that is the correct description. However, I intend no discourtesy at all to that Government, whether it is the provisional or actual Government in Poland, and 1 hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that statement.
A number of other points were put to me and perhaps I had better deal with them very quickly. With regard to those Poles who are genuinely afraid of reprisals, I think I have indicated that the Government will be particularly careful not to use situations like that to the detriment of the men if they are taking some time over making their declarations. I have already dealt with the point about the five years, and with the 15,000 who are vet undecided. We will proceed to get them to decide. In general, I think I have

now covered most of the points that have been raised, except one or two. With regard to the hunger strike that took place at Fairfield Camp, I want to say that the camp is under the control of the War Office and the hunger strike was a protest against the delay in repatriating these people. I am told that the earliest dates at which they can now be repatriated is in March, and as soon as we can get them off they will go. The hunger strike is over; there were some deficiencies in the camp, so the War Office has informed us, and I understand that steps have been taken to remedy them. I presume that it it is not very comfortable in Scotland with as much snow about as there has been during the last week.
With regard to the case of the railwayman who was mentioned by my hon. Friend, we must be clear that there is no intention of recalling to the Resettlement Corps this person who was released to take up civilian employment. All that takes place in cases of this sort is that the man is summoned to attend the centre which deals with resettlement affairs, and half a day is taken in order to register him, discharge him, and give him all the perquisites he is entitled to on discharge from the Forces. It ought to be made quite clear to all Poles who have taken up employment that they will not be taken away and put into the Resettlement Corps. With regard to the rates of pay for officers, I understand that these rates are the same as in the British Army, so long as they are employed on military duties. I think that I have covered most of the points which have been raised.

Mr. Peake: I was hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary was going to say a word or two upon what has been the main criticism of the Government throughout this Debate, and that is, that out of 150,000 men who have been here for a long time, only about 2,000 have so far found their way into permanent employment. This is a matter for which his Department has some personal responsibility.

Mr. Ness Edwards: That is true, but the Ministry of Labour only has a special responsibility after the men have been enlisted in the Resettlement Corps. There is also the question of language, which has been rather brushed aside in this Debate. I can assure the House that this is a matter of great difficulty. I am told


that very few of those who are coming from Africa and Italy can speak English. They all have to be registered, enrolled in the Resettlement Corps, sorted out and so on. Gangs of these men have been used for a very long time to do important work in this country. Gang labour has been the form in which the Poles have been used almost wholly in Scotland. Scotland will not take them individually, although they have been used in other parts of the country.

Mr. Law: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the figure 1 gave to him about the number of qualified miners in the Polish Forces is correct, and whether it is a fact that out of 900 miners a few months ago, only one has actually gone down a mine?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I cannot say. Most of the miners are Silesians. Most speak German, and most of them have elected to go back to work in the pits in Silesia. I am afraid that we shall get very few skilled miners out of the Resettlement Corps. I think I have covered most of the points which have been raised, but if any are outstanding, I will try to get in touch with hon. Members to let them have an answer. This is the machine which wilt enable us to do the job, and until we get this Bill through, I cannot see how we can do the job of dispersing the Poles who would like to remain with us and finally acquire British status. I hope, therefore. that the House will reject the Amendment and give this Bill a Second Reading.

9.34 P.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: This has been rather an interesting Debate, and I am grateful for having a few moments left to make a few remarks. The Parliamentary Secretary has answered most of the points which were outstanding, but I would ask him to bear two other matters in mind when this Bill becomes an Act. One has to try and appreciate how this is going to re-act on the Poles. The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) pointed out to the two Communist Members that their first duty was that of British Members of Parliament. While endorsing fully what was said, I have had in mind what the Poles would be thinking about the Debate today. There is one thing we have failed to appreciate. and that is that the Poles in England are

divided roughly into two sections. There is one half which believes that the life they knew before the war was not altogether satisfactory, was always an uneasy life, one which they certainly never intend to start again, and which they believe they would have to start again if they went back, no matter what Government there was in Poland in five or 10 years' time. The other half are looking to the day when there is a regime in Poland which they believe will allow them a free and democratic life.
We have to appreciate that it is of vital importance to cater for both types. This Bill caters only for the second type I have mentioned. We must realise that those who have to wait five years before becoming naturalised British subjects will probably become disgruntled if they have made up their minds that they will never go back to Poland. Those Poles should be given earlier naturalisation than the others. The Home Secretary said that he could not produce a Bill to enable only Poles to be naturalised, but I think he is intending to bring in a Bill to cover all those who wish to be naturalised. I would ask him to consider carefully whether or not he can devise some form of legislation to enable those Poles who never want to go back to Poland to become British subjects before the five years is up.
One of the things that British people pride themselves upon, no matter how badly they are fed or heated, is their right to be given information. Some of the information that we have been given today could, I think, have been given to us a great deal sooner. There is a national interest in these Poles, and I believe that it is only right we should try to accommodate them in a somewhat better manner than German prisoners of war. We want information as to how these people are living. In the past, information has been difficult to obtain. We must realise that the Polish Resettlement Corps is a temporary body, and we should be careful not to lavish accommodation on them if, at the end of five years, the whole thing will vanish and these men become British subjects. This is a good Bill, but it could be a good deal better, and I hope it will be followed by legislation which will bring about the early naturalisation of those Poles who never intend to go back to Poland.

Question,"That 'now," stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Michael Stewart.]

POLISH RESETTLEMENT [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No 69.—(King's Recommendation signified.)

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the application of the Royal Warrant as to pensions, etc., for the military forces to certain Polish forces, to enable the Assistance Board to meet the needs of, and to provide accommodation in camps or other establishments for, 'certain Poles and others associated with Polish forces, to provide for their requirements as respects health and educational services, and to provide for making arrangements and meeting expenses in connection with their emigration, it is expedient—
(A) To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(i)payments under any scheme for applying the said Royal Warrant, with effect from such date before or after the passing of the said Act as may be specified in the scheme, in relation to the disablement or death of members of the Polish Naval detachment mentioned in the agreement made between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Poland on the eighteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, the Polish armed forces organised and employed under British command in pursuance of the agreement made as aforesaid on the fifth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty, or the Polish resettlement forces;
(ii)payments under any provision made by such a scheme for continuing, for not more than one year from the coming into operation of that provision, payments being then made in respect of disablement or death of members of other Polish forces;
(iii)any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under Section six of the Determination of Needs Act, 1945, attributable to any provisions of the said Act of the present Session for—

(a)the grant of allowances by the Assistance Board to Poles in the United Kingdom in consequence of war circumstances, and the application for the purposes of the grant of such allowances of any provisions of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, or of rules and regulations thereunder;
(b)the provision by or on behalf of the Assistance Board for such Poles of accommodation in camps, hostels or other establishments, or the making by or on behalf of the said Board of provision for

meeting the needs, and promoting the welfare, of persons for whom the accommodation is provided;
and any increase so attributable in the sums payable out of such moneys under section forty-seven of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934 (which relates to salaries and allowances of staff of the Assistance Board and of appeal tribunals aid expenses of Government departments);
(iv)any expenses incurred by the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State, or by the Minister of Education or the Secretary of State, in the making by him or on his behalf of provision for meeting respectively needs as to mental or bodily health, and educational needs, of such Poles;
(v)any expenses incurred by the Minister of Labour and National Service in making arrangements and providing facilities in connection with the emigration of such Poles;
(B) To authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Assistance Board under the said Act of the present Session by way of payments from such Poles, or from persons under obligation to maintain them, for accommodation, allowances or other benefits provided for them under the said Act or otherwise in respect of their maintenance, or received by the Board under the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, by virtue of any application of provisions of that Act by the said Act of the present Session.
In this Resolution references to Poles in the United Kingdom in consequence of war circumstances include references to persons in the United Kingdom being members or former members of forces mentioned in paragraph A (i) of this Resolution, and to persons in the United Kingdom specified in the paid Act of the present Session by reference to their relationship to or dependence on any such Poles, members or former members, or to or on anybody of Polish forces entering the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Ede.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendment.

Ordered: "That the Lords Amendment be now considered."— [Mr. Ede]

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of 7 & 8 Geo. 6. c. 41.)

Lords Amendment:
In page 1, line 16, leave out "subparagraph (ii)" and insert "subparagraph (i)

9.41 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is little more than a correction of a printing error. But it does show the danger, which the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) has so often pointed out, of reprinting an amending Schedule at the end of a Bill, because people read that rather than the text of the Bill, and in this small particular the Bill was wrongly printed. This is to ensure that the Schedule which was attached to the end of the Bill shall be the law of the land, when this Bill becomes law.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ISLE OF MAN HARBOURS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

9.42 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Oliver): I beg to move, "That this Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a very small Measure consisting of two Clauses, one of which is confined to the Short Title. It arises from a scheme of constitutional development recently carried out for bringing the Governor of the Isle of Man into closer touch with the Boards of Tynwald, which administer various local government services in the Island, and to enable him to appoint the chairmen of the Boards as members of a non-statutory Executive Council to advise him generally in the government of the island.
To do this, it was necessary to modify the constitutions of the Boards, so that the chairmen should be appointed by Tynwald after consultation with the Governor, instead of as, heretofore, being chosen, in most cases, by the Boards themselves. This has been done by Act of Tynwald for all Boards—or Harbour Commissioners as they are more properly called—except the Harbour Board, whose constitution is fixed by the Isle of Man Harbours Act, 1872. That was an Act of the Unite I Kingdom Parliament and cannot, therefore, be altered except by legislation of the two Houses of Parliament.
The present Bill, which has been agreed with the Isle of Man authorities, will leave Tynwald free to legislate and

to bring the constitution of the Harbour Commissions into line with that of the other Boards on the Island. Under the Act of 1872, His Majesty's Receiver-General is ex officio chairman of the Harbour Board and when the Board is constituted by Act of Tynwald it is contemplated that the chairman of the Board should be appointed by Tynwald. As in the case of the other Boards the office of Receiver-General in the Island of which the functions, property, rights and liabilities may be transferred to the new Harbour Board under the powers conferred by the Bill is one of very ancient date and its holder is appointed by Royal Warrant. It was recognised some years ago that some change might have to be made in the constitution of the Harbour Commissioners and the present Receiver-General accepted office on the understanding that he would retire if and when changes were made. It is accordingly proposed that the present holder should retire when new arrangement comes into force and the office will then become obsolete. This is a very small matter; it will enable the finishing touches to be put to a scheme of constitutional development which is of considerable importance to the Isle of Man, and will enable the islanders and their elected representatives, to take a full share in their own Government.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: May I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State upon the admirable way in which he has read a speech made in another place?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of Order. Is it according to the Rules of this House that speeches made in another place should be quoted exactly here?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know what speeches were quoted. If it were a Ministerial statement, then certainly it would be in Order. But perhaps it was not exactly quoted, as having been made in another place. That is the way we sometimes get out of these things.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.— [Mr. Michael Stewart.]

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Rayleigh, a copy of which Cider was presented on 10th February, he approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Beeston and Stapleford, a copy of which Order was presented on 10th February, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Elstree, a copy of which Order was presented on 10th February, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section r of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the City of Oxford, a copy of which Order was presented on 10th February, be Approved—(Mr. oliver.)

Orders of the Day — FOOTBALL POOLS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Michael Stewart.]

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Osborne: I beg to draw the attention of the House to the football pools industry. I believe that this so-called industry constitutes one of the greatest menaces of the present time and it represents an evil that is social, financial, economic and moral. The greatest trouble in dealing with the problem is that we have so little real information about it, and I should like to see one of the famous Cripps working parties established to investigate all the details. As far as I can make out there are eight large pools, the largest of which employs some 11,000 persons. I believe that these large pools are reasonably honestly and efficiently run, but, the House may know, and the country should know, that something like 20 per cent. of the gross takings are deducted for expenses and profit. I think that if those of us who are engaged in ordinary commercial enterprise were allowed that percentage without any risk we should consider ourselves extremely fortunate under a Socialist Administration.
There are also 15 medium-sized pools which are, I think, less efficiently run and perhaps a little less honest. Then, behind those, there are something like 750 smaller pools, some of which last for only a few weeks. It is on these smaller pools that I think the searchlight should be most carefully trained. Some of them have been employing house-to-house canvassers, who have been paid £10 a week in the case of men and £9 a week for women, plus commission, which, I am told, has amounted in some cases to as much as 10s. in the £on takings in the first few weeks. This is a scandal which should be exposed and of which we should have all the particulars.
I think the gravest charge against football pools is made with the background of White Paper No. 7018, on the publication of which the Government should be congratulated from all sides of the House. This White Paper, which was published about a fortnight ago, showed clearly that the economic position of the country was extremely serious and that the bottleneck was manpower. The Government indicated clearly that we had more jobs than we had hands to do them, and they appealed to all sides of industry and to both sides of this House to make apparent to the country our serious economic position. Against that sombre document we had the statement of Mr. Seebohm Rowntree, who is an acknowledged authority, in a letter to "The Times" dated 13th January, in which he stated that in his considered opinion there are between 300,000 and 400,000 persons fully and gainfully employed in the gambling industry, and my contention is that we cannot afford this even on the lowest terms.
Out of those 300,000 to 400,000 I believe there are something like 75,000 engaged today in the football pools industry as full-time workers. In addition, there are about.50,000 who are part-time workers. All of them, I claim, are economic parasites, and they are not producers. Older Socialists sitting opposite will remember making use of those words in the days when they really meant what they said. The White Paper said of three industries in which I am interested that the hosiery trade is 46,000 workers short, the footwear trade 24,000 short, and the clothing industry 125,000 short—mainly women. I know of one textile firm in Liverpool which lost 250 girls from its production three


weeks ago to the biggest of the pools in Liverpool. The women of this country especially ought to face this question—and the Government should face it on their behalf—" Do we want clothes or pools? "We cannot have both, because if we use the labour for pools we cannot have it in the clothing industry. I contend that if the 50,000 or 70,000 women now engaged in football pools were put into the clothing industry, the clothes rationing scheme could be ended in 12 months. If they are not, I believe we shall have clothes rationing for another 10 years. Recently, on many occasions, there have been Questions about the supply of nurses, and on every occasion the answer that has been given by the Minister has been that the supply of labour is not available. Surely, it is more important to have nurses in the hospitals and to have our hospitals properly run than to waste our woman-power in the pools industry.

Mr. McGovern: Is the hon. Member suggesting to the Government that women should be directed into these industries? If the girls do not want to go, does he want to force them to go?

Mr. Osborne: I am not answering for the Government, and if I were to make suggestions involving legislation, I should be out of Order. The hon. Member, with his long Parliamentary record, ought to know better than to tempt me into doing so. All of us feel now the terrible catastrophe of the coal crisis upon us. I want to put the following point to Ministers. In "The Times" this morning there was a letter signed by leading Members of all parties about the five important weekly journals that may have to be closed down. In Liverpool, the largest pool runs its own printing press. Will that printing press be closed down this weekend? Will power and light be supplied for the pools when the Economist "and the "Spectator" are not allowed to come out? If so, I think it is a gross scandal. One good thing that has come out of the crisis already is the closing down temporarily of dog-racing and dog-tracks.' I wish they could be closed down for ever.

Mr. McGovern: Pussyfoot

Mr. Osborne: If any hon. Member who knows the position of industry today can

stand up for dog-racing, then I do not know where his senses are.

Mrs. Braddock: What about horse-racing?

Mr. Osborne: I will come to that later. Apart from the question of manpower, I would like to call the attention of the House to the use of paper and printing in connection with the pools. Here we have some definite information. Last Friday, the Assistant Postmaster-General told the House, in answer to a Question, that the pools' posting today amounts to 7,750,000 a week as compared with 2,250,000 a week last year. That is a growth of more than three times within 12 months. The Assistant Postmaster-General also informed the House that the clients' replies to the pool firms at present amount to 6,000,000 per week compared with 1,800,000 a year ago. If growth like that continues another year, the whole of this country will be turned into a gambling casino, and I doubt whether even a Scottish Member would want to see that. We cannot afford this waste of paper and of printing. I remind hon. Members that, from time to time, Questions have been asked in the House about the shortage of scientific books and textbooks for universities and schools. Is it to the benefit of the country that we should have pools and not have scientific books? We have also been told many times that newspapers like the "New Statesman," which hon. Members opposite like to read, or the "Spectator," which I much prefer, or the "Economist," which we all like to quote, would like to publish larger newspapers, and more of them. They are not able to do so because of lack of printing and paper, yet we can waste 13 million circulars every week upon pools.
New books also suffer. Trevelyan's "Social History of England," which must have been read by most hon. Members to their great benefit, was limited in its circulation. The publisher said that that was because there was neither printing nor paper available; yet we can find paper for pools to maintain an industry that, at the best, maintains parasites. I understand that the pools are under a gentleman's agreement not to use more than 2½ per cent. of their prewar amount, but if 2½per cent. of the


prewar amount allows them, as the Minister told us, to send out 7¾ million circulars per week, what on earth did they send out in prewar days?

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." —[Mr. Simmons.]

Mr. Osborne: As I was saying, I doubt Whether they are playing fair with the Board of Trade, and I would like to have that point looked into.
Now I turn to the question of finance. I believe that the best authorities say that horse-racing at the present time costs the country £325 million, and greyhound racing £275 million, per annum, and the best estimate for pools puts the figure at about £75 million. There is great scope still for pools, as against those other figures. The total betting bill for the country is estimated conservatively at £700 million per annum. It is a scandal that we can find so much money for wasteful forms of entertainment, and it is a melancholy thought that the whole of this vast sum does not make one farthing's contribution to the National Exchequer. We are spending about £1thousand million a year upon drink and tobacco, more than I think we can really afford, but both those forms of expense pay handsome dividends to the Exchequer. It is not for me to suggest what they should do, but I should like the pools and the other industries that I have mentioned to make their contribution —

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Member cannot continue with that line of argument. Taxation is a matter which requires legislation, and it is, therefore, out of Order upon the Adjournment.

Mr, Osborne: I am sorry that I transgressed, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I shall not continue with that line of argument, but will turn to another aspect of this problem.
In our countryside and in our streets are great hoardings, put up at immense expense by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking the workers of this country to put their savings into National Savings Certificates. The poster says:
2½ per cent. and Safety.

Side by side there is an advertisement of equal size which says:
£21.000 for a penny pool
Can we wonder that the working man is failing to put into National Savings the amount of money that the Chancellor hoped? I should like to see, underneath the poster which refers to the £25,000, another poster, pointing out the risk that the pools contributor takes and the little chance that he has of winning a £25,000 prize. The very fact that such big prizes are offered takes away from the ordinary working man the desire to do a steady week's work. He is looking for his excitement in something better—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I believe that any form of organised gambling is a mug's game, whether on the Stock Exchange, the dogs or the pools, and it seems to me that in the pools especially it is the crooks who are looking for suckers. Unfortunately there are far too many suckers at the present time. There is no guarantee how much of the gross income is sent back in prizes. We have no details as to how much is deducted—

Mr. Keenan: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the fault is not with the pool firms but in the fact that no Government has yet undertaken to regulate them and provide safeguards to investors in the pools?

Mr. Osborne: I should be ruled out of Order if I went into that subject. Mr. Deputy-Speaker has been indulgent to me and I do not wish to try his patience too much. My object is to show the evil and its proportions, and then ask the Government to do something about it. On the question of the "£25,000 for a penny" this morning I rang up one of the greatest London insurance companies and asked the actuary to give me the chance of winning a prize in a pool of 20 matches. The odds against getting an all correct return were staggering. I hardly believed it, but it comes from the actuary of one of the leading insurance companies of this country. The odds are 3,468,784,401 to one against, so that underneath these lurid advertisements of "£25,000 for a penny." I would like to see, in all honesty, "but your chance of winning is 3,468,784,401 against you." Yet hon. Members opposite challenge me when I say it is a mug's game. Before I leave the financial side, may I say I


think it is admitted by reasonable men in industry and sociologists of all shades of opinion that if a man is looking hopefully week by week to winning an unexpected large prize he is much less likely to be satisfied with the humdrum day to day and week to week job.
I have been accused of being a killjoy —[HON. MEMBERS: "A pussyfoot."]—by a Scottish hon. Member who probably does not know at all what real joy means. No one in this House would accuse the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) of being a killjoy. He is one of the bright ornaments of this House, and in the Debate on the Budget on i6th May last year, he said:
I am not taking any high moral line"—
That may even satisfy Scottish hon. Members—
but I do say that we have to realise that here we have a national cancer"—
"cancer" is the word he used—
which is eating into the national character in every walk and branch of life."— [OFFICIAL REPORT. 16th May, 1946; Vol. 422, C. 2155.]
The junior Burgess for Oxford University also said:
I am sure that before this Parliament ends the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his friends will have to face this national cancer, whether from a moral or financial point of view…"— "OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th May, 1946; Vol. 422, c. 2156.]
That is the sober and declared opinion of one of the most cheerful Members of this House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Bleak House."] If it is a bleak house it is in a bleak country to which the hon. Member's party has brought us. This is no new problem. When Sir Austen Chamberlain was Chancellor of the Ex-chequer in 1919, he said —

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he has referred to the Chancellor and to questions clearly involving taxation. I hope he will keep off that aspect of it.

Mr. Osborne: I am very sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Carmichael: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Will you kindly ask the hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding his very strong detestation of pools, to leave the aliens from across the Border alone?

Mr. Osborne: The Scots have always been the most troublesome of our subject races. Sir Austen Chamberlain said this in 1919:
At a time when the one lesson you have to teach everybody that there is no salvation except in work, you teach them to expect salvation by luck.
If ever a person from the grave pointed a finger at the pools, surely there is an example of it. And if it was true in 1919, it is ten times more true today. My final quotation is from the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. In his first Budget speech he said this:
It is essential that all expenditure which has no national or social justification should be stubbornly forced down.
I ask hon. Members opposite, What national or social justification is there for the expenditure on pools? And, if there is none, what steps have the Government taken to carry out the Chancellor's promise and threat that they should be stubbornly forced down? We are entitled to know. The brave new world which we on this side will say to certain hon. Members that they honestly promised the deluded electorate in 1945, is very slow to come. May I remind hon. Members of this? [Laughter.] I do not see what there is to laugh about in a serious matter like this. I say this to Ministers, that a brave new world will not be built up on dog racing and pools. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nor the Stock Exchange."] Nor the Stock Exchange, I admit that readily.
May I remind hon. Members of two other facts before I sit down, and ask if the brave new world that they want can be built on these facts? At a time when we are short of coal and food and clothes, we are today consuming in tobacco, according to the latest statistics, 23.53 million lb. per month—that was in October, 1945—as against 13.52 million average for 1935 We are consuming today 2.54 million barrels of beer as against 1.90 million. No brave new world will be built up on such false foundations, and it is high time somebody from the Front Bench, of whom the country will take note, said so.
I am grateful to the House for listening to me, for I feel deeply that the cause of our economic collapse is as much moral as economic. The Government would redeem their election promises if they would tackle these evils now. I plead that


an investigation into the pools should be made, so that we could get to know the whole of the facts, and then the House would be in a position to demand action.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Nally: The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) has rendered something of a public service in raising this matter tonight. I want to remind him of two things. Having an acquaintanceship with the bigger pools, I have found that the overwhelming majority of pool promoters are of the Conservative persuasion. I understand that one of the greatest of the pool giants was once ambitious to stand as a Conservative Parliamentary candidate. The pools are an expression of pure, undiluted, private enterprise, without Government restriction of any kind. The hon. Member, in pleading for action to be taken, should not have looked so much to this side, as upon his own side of the House.
Those of us who have been interested in this subject for some time, have not had from the Ministry of Labour the frank dealing which we were entitled to expect. I have repeatedly asked at Question time, and otherwise, for some information about the number employed part-time and full-time in the industry, and I have not been able to get the information. The figures given by the hon. Member for Louth are quite accurate, but there is subsidiary and ancillary labour to the pools, about which we are entitled to ask for an explanation. In the last four or five months there have appeared in all the great cities of the North, I am informed—and I know it was so in the case of Manchester—huge cycle racks made of metal, each with accommodation for three cycles. The cycle racks were given free of charge to newsagents and hairdressers acting as agents for Little-woods. Where their premises stood back from the pavement, the racks were erected free of charge by agents of Littlewoods. Hundreds have been erected in various sites in the country. I have been unable to ascertain from the Government under what conditions that metal was obtained. I have constituents engaged on vital undertakings in connection with the export and home trade who have been unable to get precisely the metal that Littlewoods publicity agents find no difficulty in getting. I put a Question to the President of the Board of Trade asking whether it was true or not that the Board of Trade

have approved a manufacturers' licence for the construction of 10,000 desks intended for one individual football pool firm. The Parliamentary Secretary told me that I was misinformed, despite the fact that I had taken the story directly from a local newspaper, which gave a long and involved account of the manufacturing firm concerned. No licences for 10,000 desks had been issued; a licence had been issued for only 2,800.

Mr. Jennings: Is that not further proof that it is time the Board of Trade was reorganised, and there was another party to regulate it?

Mr. Nally: I am satisfied that the Board of Trade will continue to fight its battles with some skill in dealing with the bigger racketeers. I am asking now that they should concentrate on the smaller ones. We shall come to it in good time, and I hope the hon. Member will support us when we come to it. Will the Minister who is to reply stand up and justify that during the last few months time and material have been involved in building 2,800 desks for a football pool organisation? Can it be justified? If not what is the Ministry of Labour doing about it?
I want to make this perfectly clear, because I am certain the hon. Member will not think I am discourteous. We have an hon. Member on this side of the House who espouses the teetotal cause. Every time he speaks on that subject I am convinced that he drives more people into the bar downstairs than does any other man in the House. It is equally true that in certain sections of the hon. Gentleman's speech I felt like filling in a football coupon. Those of us on this side who feel keenly on this matter are not opposed to pool gambling as such. We believe that the Ministry of Labour are neglecting the matter and are not pursuing this problem as vigorously as they ought to do. This matter will be raised again, but we have asked questions of the Minister of Labour, and we are entitled to an answer.

10.21 p.m.

Mrs. Braddock: I have listened to the discussion, and I am amazed that it should have started from such a source. The question of what the working man who earns his money should do with his money is entirely one for himself. As long as pools


are allowed, and as long as the British mentality remains, every one of them will like to take a chance. I cannot see any reason why it should be necessary to object, or to try to put restrictions on what a man who earns his living should do with what spare cash he has.

Mr. Osborne: Because it is legal is the hon. Lady arguing that it must therefore always remain? If so, what is she doing in the progressive party?

Mrs. Braddock: I am not arguing that it should always remain. I am saying that while it is legal, there is no reason why it should not go on. The peculiar thing about this matter is that the attempt is always to get at something which the working man does. It is an objection to his spending a couple of shillings a week taking a chance. Whatever we do, and whatever sort of legislation we pass, the British working man will take a chance in the form of a bet, in some way or other. It is better that it should be done openly and above board rather than that he should be driven round the corner to the small people who deal in this sort of thing, and where he has no chance at all if some fellow whom he does not know desires to get away with the amount of money that man wants to put on a horse.
I have heard no question of racing being stopped. The biggest percentage of people who bet on racing are people who support hon. Members on the other side of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] to a very great degree that is so. The average working man has not enough spare cash to spend a lot on betting and racing. If we are to stop one section I would advocate stopping the lot—yes, even gambling on the Stock Exchange. If we are to deal with the situation, let us deal with it that way, and let us make the country into something which has no imagination of any sort. I would say that I have never participated in a pool in my life, I am not interested enough, and I have too much to do in other directions. But I object to anyone saying that the working man has not the right to spend 2s. in the way in which he wants to.
So far as employment is concerned, the hon. Member opposite made some reference to the fact that people were going from a firm into one of the pools. Has he made any inquiry into the wages that

are paid weekly by those people, to see why? The reason why people go from one industry to another is to get more money than they have been able to obtain in their previous employment. The best thing that can be done is for those employers of labour who are affected to look at those wages which are paid. It is a competitive system, and hon. Members opposite believe in competition. If they do they cannot put forward the point of view that this or any other Government can restrict the movement of people from one industry to another in the way which is apparently desired. We could only do that during wartime. It was done as a national emergency measure. At the moment, people can move from one industry to another. The position in Liverpool is that the rate paid in wages for juniors, whom they train, is well above the rate paid by many other firms who employ juvenile labour. If necessary, I could give the rates of pay. I object to anybody protesting against the working man using his money in the way in which he wants to use it, so long as he is entitled to do so by law.

10.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): No one would say that this Debate has not been entertaining. We have gone very deeply into the domain of morals, we have touched a little on the question of material controls and manpower, Scotland has had its complimentary reference, and so have the pools. But what amazes me is that the application for restrictive practices and for controls over morals, manpower and materials comes from the opposite side of the House.

Mr. Osborne: I was asking for information.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I will try to give information. After all, my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade has been maligned for his views about austerity. Apparently he is not being sufficiently austere. From a personal and moral point of view I have a great deal of sympathy with the view expressed by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), but I am not entitled to impose my moral views upon other citizens. It is a matter for them to decide. When we in this House interfere with the moral conduct of the people of the country, where


are we to draw the line? This applies to all classes of the community. Shall we stop dog racing, pools, horse racing, tobacco, beer, or shall we stop the use of private motor cars for pleasure purposes? When we come to consider what is essential and what is not, and attach to it moral considerations, there will be widespread interference with the private lives of the citizens of the country, and on that we must exercise due care.
The question of morals is a matter entirely in the charge of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I do not propose to follow that line any further. Morals are very safe with him. I think that normally he takes a very sane and broadminded view of these matters. With regard to advertising, it will be appreciated that that is a matter for the Board of Trade, but I would again point out that the advocacy for the abolition of controls on materials supplied comes from hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Osborne: No.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Oh, yes. One remembers the Beaverbrook headlines, "Get rid of the Controls," and "Strike off the Shackles". The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) in fine, purple, speeches during the Election spoke of this "striking off the shackles from the citizens of Britain". By that he meant that they should have complete freedom to do what they liked. It is true that the Board of Trade have allowed to this industry 2frac14; per cent. of their prewar consumption of paper. I am prepared to accept the warning, or the hint, that was given. It may well he that some pool proprietors are not sticking to the agreement.

Mr. Nally: Some of them are not parties to it.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am told that all of them have entered into a gentleman's agreement. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not the right word."] I use that word in a Tory sense and not in a moral sense. I am told that there is that agreement to which all of them, individuals and the organised body, are parties.

Mr. Osborne: rose—

Mr. Ness Edwards: There are other points to which I ought to reply. I cannot give way. I was interested in the moral attack upon commercial advertising by the hon. Member for Louth. I was rather surprised that the pools were copying some of the tactics of the Stock Exchange in advertising their wares. I have been told that the Minister of Labour has always refused to give figures. The figures for the sports and entertainments industry are contained in the Monthly Digest. The figure is 197,000 for December, 1946, and that compares with a mid—1939 figure of 172,000—

Mr. Osborne: rose—

Mr. Ness Edwards: Let me give some of the other hon. Members some satisfaction. These figures ought to be made known. In the North Western region, in Merseyside, the figures are as follow: Little-woods employ 10,000, Vernons employ 5,000 to 6,000, and of the total of 15,000. not more than 1,500 are men.

It being Half-past Ten o'Clock. Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.